A bad Situation(Kind of Long post/rant)

[Patriot]

Recently In my Champions Game a team member (A Mentalist named Panther)was kidnapped by Eurostar she was easily overpowered by them and Team Vanguard had to find her. Using Mentalla to block her mental signature the team couldn't pinpoint her location exactly but they did narrow it down to about a 2 hundred mile area. After ,for lack of a better word ,assessing the situation they went in. They Narrowed the search down To a Winery In Liechenstein,before they went in It was described as a beautiful building nearly a castle from the Mid 1400s.
They entered through the kitchen, where they found a cook and a chef, They asked to be taken to whomever was in charge...They were taken to Fiacho, who then Invited the team to dinner, He had something important he wanted to discuss with then about the United Nations...The Team Leader Violently opposed the idea, And Fiacho Had enough of him. Fiacho then grabed the innocent( a cook) and threatened to Kill him if the team didnt leave....The Team Leader Stellar Replies ..."SO, he isnt innocent he works for you "...(keep in mind he is a cook)(needless to say I was enraged out of game about this) Stellar then proceeds to teleport himself, Team Vanguard, and the floor of the building out...about 100 miles away...the team returned home with its recovered member. This action Caused the collaspe of the building , kiling 6 normals, and injuring the 2 owners of the winery.
The Next Morning
A news report came across stating that The Country of Leichenstein had contacted the United Nations, And Was pushing for a resolution to Dis-band Team Vanguard due to the destruction of a national treasure (the winery) and that they were going to got to the International court and have Stellar tryed for Terrorism, and The destruction of a historical and National Treasure. At this point Due to the current outlook Of the USA by the UN , The Resolution has been ratified by 67 countries.
Stellar will be served A summons To appear in an International court next game. If he doesnt appear , They will rule against him , and he will be ruled a international fugitive, terrorist and criminal
Last night We had a pick up game , In which UNTIL contacted certain members of Team Vanguard, basically to set up a taskforce to be ready to apprehend Stellar when he doesnt show up for court, which is expected.


Any Input? What would you do different? Would you run this?

[Hugh Neilson]

Maaaannn!

You don't mention personality so I don't know whether this is in character for Stellar. All that would do for me is make me wonder why he's leader and consider docking xp if it isn't, though.

Your premise seems reasonable. How much political clout does Eurostar have? Can they make this seem worse than it is (hard though that seems)? How much of a rep does Team Vanguard have? Might there be some inclination to believe better of them?

Frankly, the whose scenario sounds like one I'd run with my group being framed for having committed such an action. The difference is that your Dark Champion appears to have actually done it.

I wonder whether contacting other members of the team is the right approach. Does the world media know Stellar acted alone, or would the accusation be levied at the team as a whole (and what were they doing while all this was going on anyway)? Again, maybe Eurostar has the pull to try and get the whole team dragged down, in which case the UN might feel more comfortable sending some other supers in (or a couple hundred UNTIL agents, I suppose).

These trials could drag on too, as they try to put together an unbiased tribunal...all the while, the press can have a field day and the team's rep can get trashed.

Patriot, I suspect you want someone to say "No, you're overreacting", but it sounds tom me like Stellar at least, and maybe Vanguiard as a whole, crossed a serious line. I'd say your scenario sounds pkausible, reasonable and well-earned. I'd be interested in hearing how it goes down.

[tesuji]

Ok, so when you started this run (as well as in previous encounters where the team went cross-country border hopping) did all the realities of international travel come into play? Did they need passports, any unusual requirements for known supers entering the country and so on?

or do intl politics only rear their head when they divert from your script?

The post reads like the player playing Stellar ticked you off and now ther world in game is going to get even for you.

When is the last time you say that small a country and a lethality involving the collapse of a winery and six civilians killed spur the Un to make that RAPID and that DECISIVE a response?

t sounds like kne jerk "get back at you" towards stellar.

and this, i will note, is from just hearing **your** side of the events.

****************

Would i run this?

Absolutely... if it were a part of a story and if it made sense and was intended to be fun for ALL involved, even that low down dirty scoubdrel barely worth the skin it took to wrap his mostly water carcass in we call the PLAYER who runs Stellar. (after all, it is the player you are irked with, right?)

If this is part of a clever and intricate plot where the PCs will become the focus of an intl conspiracy where they may have to go "on the run" for a while and root out who has influenced the Un and set them up and eventually uncover the plot, stop the bad guys and recover their good name... then its a master stroke, a comic classic and you are to be applauded.

If its a knee jerk slap back at the player who ticked you off, and if you expect the outcome to be his character being ousted from the team or in dutch while the rest of the team goes on without him, or even if you haven't thought this further than an assumption of immediate intl horror and reaction on this large a scale to the destruction of a winery and loss of six (has the team given its side at all? Didi the Un ask them to give statements or did they just take the bruised winery owner's testimony as gospel and above reporach even though he harbored terrorists? Did anyone say "uhh, while we get ready to crucify these HEROES shouldn't we ask what the terrorist super team was doing there?" once?) to "show him"... then i would not run it, not at all.

ymmv

[lemming]

Hmm. While I would of had the collapse happen, I think you should of had a few of the normals live. Better to have live credible witnesses.
I might of even had a Supervillian get killed. Make up a throw away provisional member of Eurostar.

Does sound like there was a bit of a knee jerk response to have this all happen. There would have to be some investigation into the winery collapse to actually figure out the who & why. So some time should pass.

Even though Stellar caused the collapse, Eurostar would have the heat turned up for them as well. Just because the heroes are easy to find, shouldn't mean that they'll be hunted more so.

[tiger]

Does sound like there was a bit of a knee jerk response to have this all happen. There would have to be some investigation into the winery collapse to actually figure out the who & why. So some time should pass.


Sounds very comic book to me. If there were no sign of Eurostar the police wouldn't know they were involved. Then a tip to the police could lead to the "terrorist" Vanguard.

The other problems that would be based on their Disads. If any of them had code vs killing there would be a bit of trouble in the group. Even if they don't the thought of a hero killing innocents, those commiting no crimes, or the willful destruction of property shouldn't be allowed.

AS a GM I would have done something similiar

[Zed-F]

I agree, a major international incident might start a-brewing, but it will not come to a boil quite that quickly. Things might heat up in Leichenstein that fast, and the team could become persona non-grata there until an investigation could be performed into the matter, but the rest of the world would NOT be that quick to come to a decision on the matter, especially not with known involvement by a major terrorist group. Since they *are* terrorists, there would be quite a lot of reason for people to suspect that Eurostar might have engineered the whole thing (even if they didn't), especially by common people on the street. If the governments tried to railroad Vanguard without following due process, there would likely be a massive public outcry.

Definitely start an inquiry, and let the tension surrounding that build up for a few sessions. Give Stellar a chance to realize what he's done and to atone in a properly heroic manner before taking the gloves off.

[Jeff T.]

Random thoughts:

-Stellar should be culpable to SOME extent for his actions.

-Eurostar is supposedly the deadliest European terrorist group there is...you can't negotiate with terrorists of this power.

-Again, Eurostar was involved! I think UN officials need to take into account that extreme measures are needed when dealing with them. The fact that Eurostar chose that castle as a hideout, almost assured its destruction in the end anyway.

[Trebuchet]

Sounds to me like Vanguard's leader isn't much of a hero. Where's his "Protects Innocents"? Even if the threatened cook was Fiacho's private chef (and it sounds to me more as if he was just a poor employee of a restaurant Eurostar was at), you don't go around killing the help. Does the Fantastic Four waste Doctor Doom's maid when they attack his castle? If the cook had attacked Vanguard that might have been a different story (And probably a cook wouldn't be any realistic threat to a superhero; haven't they ever heard of "appropriate level of force"?), but this was pure murder IMHO. Their top priority should have been to get the all normals out; after that they can rescue their teammate and stomp Eurostar.

I think quick action by the UN Security Council would be totally appropriate; the UN would have to be quicker in a world of superhumans. Arresting Team Vanguard for trial would be an obvious assignment for UNTIL, quite possibly with superheroic backup. And if any of Team Vanguard is a "law and order" type, he would probably turn himself in and even help capture his fellows.

I remember you posting about your group's upcoming clash with Eurostar in my "Woo Hoo! We Whipped Eurostar!" thread a few weeks back. During that adventure our team MidGuard risked their own lives to rescue three supervillains whom they'd defeated on a sunken nuclear sub prior to their encounter with Eurostar back on the surface. What's Team Vanguard's headline? "Woo Hoo! We Killed Eurostar's Chef!" :rolleyes:

My own thought: If this is typical behavior for this group, this Team Vanguard campaign has run it's course; end it with a bang (Nuclear weapons might work) and move on. Even if you don't, this incident should cause a lot of soul searching amongst the members of Team Vanguard.

[Monolith]

Originally posted by Starlord
-Stellar should be culpable to SOME extent for his actions.

-Eurostar is supposedly the deadliest European terrorist group there is...you can't negotiate with terrorists of this power.

-Again, Eurostar was involved! I think UN officials need to take into account that extreme measures are needed when dealing with them. The fact that Eurostar chose that castle as a hideout, almost assured its destruction in the end anyway.
I have to agree with Starlord here. Eurostar is probably one of the 3 biggest threats to UNTIL (or any international peace keeping force). The UN is not going to be in a big hurry to destroy a superhero team over the destruction of a winery, even if it is a historical landmark of sorts. In the comics historical landmarks get broken or destroyed all the time. That is how you get visuals of Captain America repairing the Liberty Bell. Now the hero should be forced to make restitution for this destruction but I think you too the whole scenario just a little to far because of your own anger.

And as far as protecting innocents, well each hero is different. Everyone cannot have the same high ideals. I am sure Wolverine would have hacked right through the chef if he knew it was his only way to defeat his foe. We live in the Iron Age of comics so we must expect our players to reflect this from time to time.

[Agent X]

Aaaaah! End the game. End the game.
Or Retcon and beat the player over the head with a metaphorical club.

[Jeff T.]

How about this:

-Mentalla had taken over Stellar's mind

-Some new villain or creature with less than heroic tendencies has taken over Stellar's body (or replaced him) for the last few weeks.

Perhaps use these to explain his actions.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Starlord
How about this:
-Mentalla had taken over Stellar's mind
-Some new villain or creature with less than heroic tendencies has taken over Stellar's body (or replaced him) for the last few weeks.
Perhaps use these to explain his actions.

Good excuses if the player AND the GM agree to retcon it, but the fact is that the player made his own decisions here.

If the player now believes Stellar should not have taken this action and this was poor role playing on his part, I'd be inclined to give him an "out". But not a free one.

For the period of possession/replacement, Stellar could not have earned any xp, justifying a penalty there in game terms.

And none of this should solve the RP problem - the winery remains destroyed, 6 people remain dead and, to the world at large, Stellar remains responsible.

As for several other comments on this thread:

- I agree with the timing issue. It should take some time for this to come to trial. However, putting Stellar in custody up front makes sense, assuming there's evidence to support it. As well, Patriot's rationale is quite well set out, especially given current world events. Add in the dynamics of a world full of supers, and some added speed is not out of the question.

- Yes, Eurostar are dangerous. Would the world powers have sanctioned an air strike on the winery to eliminate them? That would have had basically the same effects as Team Vanguard's actions. Most of the "real world" does not accept that the ends justify any means - bombing civilians to get at Eurostar is likely to stir up similar feelings, and this is pretty similar.

- In a four color world of Supers, people have this inset belief the heroes will protect them. If that's the case in Patriot's campaign, those beliefs could easily be shaken to the core by what Stellar has done, provoking an extreme reaction. And how much can that be exacerbated by judicious influence by Eurostar (bribed, threatened or mind controlled politicos can work wonders to accelerate things, especially in comic book reality).

There are a few facts missing here, however.

- What did Team Vanguard do after destroying the winery? Did they stick around and try to rectify the situation to the extent possible? Did they even TRY to rescue survivors? It won't look good if it comes out 3 of those normals died in the wreckage hours after the collapse, and hours after Vanguard just took off, will it?

- If Vanguard just took off, then it's no wonder if their side of the story hasn't been told. Does the media, and world leadership, generally wait until all the facts are out before acting?

- Yes, Eurostar are partially culpable. That doesn't change the fact that Vanguard has some responsibilities. When a police officer fires his weapon, the reasons for that discharge are reviewed. Every time. High speed chases are also subject to considerable scrutiny. And police officers have legal sanction - does Team Vanguard have any sanction beyond "we're fighting the good fight"?

- What is the tone of the campaign? As some have noted, this may be acceptable in a grey "iron age" campaign. From Patriot's comments (and outrage), however, I get the sense this is four colour, not a shades of grey campaign.

Patriot, how does the US view the situation? It may be interesting to see a battle between UNTIL and hired supers on one side, and Team Vanguard and Primus on the other. This would be a very tense political situation, which may be why the UN is asking members of Team Vanguard itself to bring Stellar in, rather than assempling, say, a European team to enter the US and deport Stellar.

[Trebuchet]

Good points, Hugh. I'd like to throw another into the ring.

Eurostar is an extremely vicious and dangerous villain team, that pretty much goes without saying. People's lives are in serious jeopardy whenever Eurostar is around. That being the case, I think it would be more incumbent upon the heroes to protect innocent lives, not less. If Stellar had the capability of selectively teleporting Team Vanguard and the floor away, he certainly could have taken the innocents with him. Dropping a building on Eurostar is legit. Dropping a building on Eurostar while there are innocents inside is not.

Superheroes trying to stop the likes of Eurostar have to be certain they don't emulate Eurostar's ruthless methods or they're just as bad as Eurostar. Being wrapped in the red, white, and blue doesn't excuse callously killing civilians. Cops don't go in indiscriminately shooting civilians to rescue one of their own being held hostage. Should superheroes be held to a lesser standard? I think not.

[Patriot]

Too all who replied...Thank you;)


There are 2 surviving Innocents, the actual owners of the winery.

The Only way Stellar tweaked me off, was during the actual encounter...While it is true he only has: 0 Points Reluctant to kill , he does have 20 point protective of innocents ,Myself and every other player thought he choose poorly.

The issue of contacting other team members was mentioned, the few that were contacted had strong UNTIL or UN connections .

The action was all Stellar, the rest of the team was holding there action.

The team took off immediatly after the inncident, they teleported away with the floor, so they really had no idea till they seen the news report...One additional bit of info, this has happened to him before...teleporting the floor out wiht loss of property and life.

As of this point the US has not commented on the situation.

Eurostar is a powerful Terrorist orginization in my game, the only safe haven they have is in Leichenstein and they have a strong contact with the PM of that country.

How do you replace a priceless historical artifact , with out some cheezy major transform power?

[austenandrews]

I wouldn't play with that guy anymore.

-AA

[Trebuchet]

Patriot, the info that Eurostar has contacts within the government of Leichenstein makes it likely Eurostar will milk this for everything it's worth. They can say "See, we asked for a peaceful parlay and Team Vanguard destroyed the historic building we were in and killed six innocent people." The press will have a field day with this incident; there's nothing they like better than finding out famous people have feet of clay. Governmental agencies will hesitate to cooperate and maybe even actively impede Team Vanguard, especially in Europe. Contacts may refuse to help.

At the very least I'd make Team Vanguard pay heavily for this incident for at least a year; starting with the removal of Stellar as team leader if not his outright expulsion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Patriot
Too all who replied...Thank you;)

There are 2 surviving Innocents, the actual owners of the winery.

So there are witnesses.


Originally posted by Patriot
The Only way Stellar tweaked me off, was during the actual encounter...While it is true he only has: 0 Points Reluctant to kill , he does have 20 point protective of innocents ,Myself and every other player thought he choose poorly.

The action was all Stellar, the rest of the team was holding there action.

How did the other players eact after the incident? Do they simply accept "Stellar has Player Character tattooed on his forehead", or have they made their own opinions about his actions known? I'm thinking of the Avengers' 'court martial' of Warbird, and similar reviews of team member actions in the past here.


Originally posted by Patriot
The team took off immediatly after the inncident, they teleported away with the floor, so they really had no idea till they seen the news report...One additional bit of info, this has happened to him before...teleporting the floor out wiht loss of property and life.

Have the other players had the opportunity to react to the reports? I'd also be curious about their response to this prior incident. Was it just swept under the carpet and ignored? If so, that did create a precedent that Stellar can get away with this kind of action. And, if the other PC's just shook their heads and walked away, do they also share some guilt? If they didn't deal with this before, then they are responsibile for Stellar still being on the team at all, which put him in a position to do the same thing again.


Originally posted by Patriot
As of this point the US has not commented on the situation.

Eurostar is a powerful Terrorist orginization in my game, the only safe haven they have is in Leichenstein and they have a strong contact with the PM of that country.

Is that contact known to the outside world? If so, this may water down Leichenstein's claims. If not, Eurostar is certainly in a position to have the politico's add some more pressure, which may mean more trouble for Team Vanguard unless they can bring some political clout to bear in their favour (contacts, for example).


Originally posted by Patriot
How do you replace a priceless historical artifact , with out some cheezy major transform power?

Worse, how do you replace loss of life? Stellar caused six deaths. He should, in some way, be culpable for that. At a minimum, it seems likely he's guilty of manslaughter. At the extreme, he has committed an act of war on Leichenstein's soil. Does the US want to back him up? NOTE: Act of War is an extreme I would expect only if Leichenstein is prepared to make this look as bad as possible for Vanguard to Eurostar's benefit.

[Zed-F]

Sounds like Stellar's getting a bit unbalanced. I would be thinking that any close contacts of the rest of the team would be getting advice from their friends/lawyers right now to distance themselves and the team as a whole from him. Cameraderie only goes so far; in a moral person it may not cross certain ethical boundaries. Of course, sometimes it does cross those boundaries, but that's a conscious choice the other players should be allowed to make.

There should certainly be questions as to why Stellar is still the team leader if he's pulled this stunt before, but the fact of the matter is that if he's on the team he has the ability to do this and no-one could stop him. If he's done it before, I would assume that if he's still team lead he just got chewed out by his superiors and given a second chance. If so, he's blown it, and should immediately be put under house arrest (or at least probation) and ultiumately face justice, but the remaining team members appear not to have had any say in the matter. I wouldn't imagine the heat would fall on them too quickly unless they publicly sided with Stellar. That doesn't mean, however, that they won't be paid close attention to over the next several months until the authorities are satisfied with their behaviour sans Stellar.

Note, that it's possible to have a story arc where Stellar goes rogue and turns into a vigilante. He may not stick around to face the music, and the PCs might encounter him later. This may be a case where as GM you can say that Stellar has just become an NPC and ask the player to make up a new character. I would only explore this option if Stellar seems dangerously unrepentant, however.

[Wormhole]

For a four-color game world, I would call that one hell of a mess. You need to sit that player down and have a serious chat with him.

[Grailknight]

Talk about shades of grey...

First off, Stellar was wrong. I'd have been willing to excuse this action if it was the first time but it isn't. Have UNTIL hold the hearing and charge him with reckless endangerment or depraved indifference as you like but...

Remember who is bringing these charges and the circumstances of the incident. It's not clear in your description if the dead and injured were Eurostar operatives, hostages or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did they ask for help when the heroes arrived or defer to Fiacho as if they knew him well? It makes a difference in whether he saw them as innocents or undercover agents.

Where was the teammate taken hostage during all this? The entire mood of the scenario hinges on whether Panther is sitting at the table freely on bound and trussed with a weapon to his/her head. I could almost ( not quite, but almost excuse) Stellar if he thought that this was the only way to save a teammate.He should have only teleported the team a short distance freed Panther and then come back to fight Eurostar or perform rescues as necessary.

Liechtenstein is going to be on trial right alongside Stellar as it comes out that they have been harboring the most feared and dangerous terrorists in Europe. If I was Stellar's defense counsel, I'd make sure the background leading up to this incident was played up. "International terrorists claim heroes used excessive force in hostage rescue" is not a headline that will get him convicted, especially if links between that govt and Eurostarcome to light.

On the Team Vanguard front, Stellar's attitude toward killing makes it unlikely that he is team leader material. At a minimum he should be a provisionary member who requires supervision from a teammate on all field missions. I'd throw his character off the team and make him an outlaw hero. I'd also expect his teammates to bring him in to face trial but I wouldn't pressure mercilessly on that point. Remember they were on a rescue mission.

What you do with Stellar's player depends on what happens in your next couple of sessions. I'd have start a new character and make sure I went over how I wanted him to play his psych lims. If he had a problem with this or you don't think its worth the trouble get rid of him if the rest of your players concur.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Patriot

The Only way Stellar tweaked me off, was during the actual encounter...While it is true he only has: 0 Points Reluctant to kill , he does have 20 point protective of innocents ,Myself and every other player thought he choose poorly.


This lim would have required an EGO roll to go against the protective of innocents, thats what the lim does. Did you require this limitation roll to be made? if not, why not? If yes and he made the roll, then you should not be upset... the lim came out and he made the required rolls.

Of course, you and the player may need to work out what innocent means, as it sounds like his view is rather loose if anyone such as the cook is so easily dismissed. (Should lower the frequency value perhaps.)

[zornwil]

I think the player issue is as important as the PC issue. Based on what you say, everyone except maybe (?) the player is aware this action was out of bounds, genre-wise but more importantly campaign-wise.

What was the player's motivation? Does he think he made a mistake? Is he saying "Oh, man, Stellar never would have done that! I really screwed up!" If so, let him retcon a bit, not enough to destroy/derail the campaign, but along the lines many have mentioned here (he was really under mind control, a duplicate sneaked in, whatever).

If the player is firmly convinced Stellar would do this AND is mature enough to take the heat, understanding the campaign world isn't going to just go along, then cool, your findings are okay assuming they're consistent with your campaign to date - you need only examine them thoroughly to see that they are consistent. However, you better talk with the player and see if they really understand it. Otherwise you may be heading down a road which will poison relations and therefore the game. Since this will fundamentally change the relationship the PC will have with the others (especially given you've stated his teammates are appalled), he should be prepared to make a new character.

If the player is immature and won't deal with it, you have to make a metagame friendship and other players' perceptions call on it.

[William Bushway]

I imagine that in a similar situation, a soldier or police officer who negligently killed 4 non-combatants in the course of rescuing a comrade would be immediately suspended pending investigation of the incident. Best-case scenario is desk-duty until a full psych evaluation and a refresher course on tactical hostage rescue has been completed. Worst case is being stripped of rank and then being tried for murder.

[death tribble]

The main European countries would not be happy with this and may dispatch their own representatives to bring the alleged felon to trial. Liechenstein is small but Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal to name but a few are not going to let this sort of thing pass without comment.
After all if they let this pass what is to stop someone else doing the same in their countries or worse ?

Interpol may impose sanctions on the team in Europe but their reach is world wide. That could affect things in America as the FBI and Interpol regularly share info.

Would I run this ? yes. Had the same thing happen when the Protectors took out the Switzerland hideway of the evil L Ron Chubbard. The player whined when the Swiss police turned up and tried to arrest him (an archer) as the team had saved the world many times. As they fled without facing the police relations between Britain and Switzerland became strained and the team were banned from operating in their borders.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
This lim would have required an EGO roll to go against the protective of innocents, thats what the lim does. Did you require this limitation roll to be made? if not, why not? If yes and he made the roll, then you should not be upset... the lim came out and he made the required rolls.

I don't believe I've ever required an ego roll (or seen one required) in any of my games. Players are expected to play their character's limitations as if they mean something. I have seen the occasional "major moral dilemma" where the player has decided the character can only take Action X with an ego roll, but that's been few and far between.

Frankly, if the only impact of the limitation was to require ego rolls a few times per game, I'd make them buy it off. Obviously, the character is trying to get over it or he wouldn't try to act against the limitation so frequently.

Should I ever find a game where an ego roll is all it takes, I'll have to consider playing a 33 Ego mentalist (and maybe take some levels with "all Ego related rolls").

[Blue]

Great power = great responsibility, etc.

I think the U.N. issue is a great resolution! It puts the player on the moral bubble.

After you let him sweat a while you can give the player an "out" of sorts. Have Fiacho & Co. contact the player via intermediaries (to distance himself) and blackmail the player. Give me what I want or I take your reputation and your team down! Then it's up to the character and his team to try to prove that this is happening.

Or you can turn them into fugitive heroes, fighting for right but doing it while sought by the cops.

[KA.]

Patriot,
I know that I am posting this without knowing all the background of your campaign, unless some of the other posters here are in your group, we all are.

So, I would like to ask a few questions.

What would you say the general tone of your campaign is?
Four-color? Iron Age? Gritty?

What have the players' past experiences been with this sort of situation?

Do NPC villains, even when they are supposed to be vicious terrorists, sit down to parley?
When they do, do they respect the "truce"?
Or is that sort of thing usually a flimsy excuse to set the heroes up for the kill.

I am not trying to defend Stellar's actions.

What I would like to know is: "What did he think was about to happen?"

Or, perhaps: "Based on past experience in the campaign, what would he reasonably expect was about to happen?"

The reason I am asking is, I run a four-color campaign.
And, while I expect my players to "toe the line", I have to make sure that I do the same.

I do not expect the players to torture prisoners, harm innocents, steal money, etc.

On the other hand, when villains take hostages, they release them unharmed if they get away.

I don't put the players in situations that are not "four-color" and somehow expect them to resolve them.

Example: Professor Evil has developed a new mind-control machine. It is connected to a wireless computer chip.

Four Color -
The chip is in the "Vote for Me" button that he always wears.
He will use it to cause the city to vote him mayor.
He will use it to get people to empty their bank accounts in order to make "campaign contributions" to him.
He will use it to get normal people to picket the heroes headquarters.
To disarm the chip, it must be removed and destroyed.

Iron Age-
The chip is planted in his brain.
He will use it to get schoolchildren to make homemade bombs and take them to school. The bombs are scattered all over the city, if one bomb is diffused, all the others go off automatically.
He will use it to cause the entire police force to hunt the heroes using deadly force. If the cops are somehow disarmed, they will pound their heads against the heroes headquarters until unconscious or dead.
To disarm the chip you must kill Professor Evil. If the first shot does not do enough Body damage to kill him instantly, the chip enters "panic mode" and everyone under its control will immediately commit suicide.

I admit that the above examples are quite skewed, but, if I put my players in the "Iron Age" situation, I am the one who has broken the "four-color" barrier, not them.

If they come up with some solution to the problem that does not result in hundreds of dead kids and cops, I can hardly say.
"Well, you never should have used an Area Effect KA in a populated area.
So, the shockwave from your explosion caused a plane full of nuns to crash into a daycare center.
And since everyone in town was mind-controlled, they think you did it just to kill an innocent man who was annoying you. Your murder trial starts tomorrow!"

If your player had every reason to believe that he could sit down and have a nice chat with Eurostar, without being poisoned, stabbed by the cook, mind-controlled, blown up, etc., then he acted very badly.

I know that it can be hard to get players to go along with the four color genre. But part of doing that is making the players able to trust in the genre conventions.

They have to know that if they let a Viper agent go because he has a hostage (instead of blowing his head off with an RKA) that the hostage will be found, safe and sound, a short while later.

One hostage found dead can quickly turn your campaign into a killing field.

The reason four-color heroes acted the way they did in the comics, is that they knew what the rules were.

Otherwise, Captain Marvel would have pinched Dr. Sivana's head off the first time he met him.

KA

[Magmarock]

...but you can tell Stellar's Player, now he is totally disregarding his 20 point Disad of Protective of Innocents, that he will be buying off his Disad with the next 20 XPs he earns... not an optional penalty. He has no choice.

This will have the added benefit of letting everyone know you are serious about people sticking to their chosen Disads.

Problem solved.

GMs need to be strong. They are running the game, after all.
Good luck!

Mags

[DoctorItron]

I think a gentler approach might work. Rather than having the whole world go after Vanguard, just have Lichtenstein push for extradition. This hits the world news, turning public opinion against Vanguard.

Perhaps Eurostar is wanted for their part in this mess, too. Eurostar won't bother to show up in court, and let the players see that Eurostar is hated/feared by people in part because they ignore laws. Then ask Vanguard if he shows up in court...

If yes, run a trail. It sounds like a conviction is likely. Maybe, just as the trial is ending, the courthouse is attacked and Vanguard helps save many lives, earning a light sentence in the process. The player will hopefully learn from the ordeal.

If he avoids court and goes into hiding, then the rest of them has to choose between bringing him in or joining him.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't believe I've ever required an ego roll (or seen one required) in any of my games. Players are expected to play their character's limitations as if they mean something. I have seen the occasional "major moral dilemma" where the player has decided the character can only take Action X with an ego roll, but that's been few and far between.

Thats cool and if all your players understand your house rules and were not confused into thinking you were playing by 5e rules, then all is fine.

However, there does seem to be some confusion about that point.

I would observe that had you actually used the book rules and enforced the book lim then that character would have needed an ego roll, perhaps a hefty one at -5, and if he had failed then his disad would have "been shown as a disad" in hard and fast obviousness and this whole problem would have been avoided as you told him that his character could not do that.

Now, maybe i am denser than most, but... playing by the rule and having the mechanics come to the fore and avoiding a major blowup type thing seems a far cry a better end result than a system which basically seems to be based on "do it right or i will get mad at you the player". I prefer a much more game oriented resolution than me getting mad at my players.

So, i think i will stick with "the rules" and not implement the "or i will get mad at you" approach to limitation enforcement. (Actually, i think the word was ticked but you get my drift.)

Seriously, by removing the mechanical and in game methods of applying disads, you have moved yourself into a position where you are faced with being angry with the player and forcing rather severe consequences affecting the whole game (not just his character, but everyone else too0 as ammeans of payback for him not playing as well as you would have preferred. That frankly looks like a fairly sucky corner to have painted YOURSELF into.

Arguably, if you had instead used the ego roll as the book rules suggest, you PROBABZLY would not have ended up trashing your player in a one sided presentation of the events on a public BBS.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Frankly, if the only impact of the limitation was to require ego rolls a few times per game, I'd make them buy it off. Obviously, the character is trying to get over it or he wouldn't try to act against the limitation so frequently.

The ego roll failure is a measure of loss of control of their character and actions. in my experience, being told the cannot take the action they choose or having their own character's actions dictated by the GM is one of if not the single most hated results in a game. They show up to PLAY their character, not to see him played. having psyche lims dictate their action on failed rolls... that teaches them quickly.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Should I ever find a game where an ego roll is all it takes, I'll have to consider playing a 33 Ego mentalist (and maybe take some levels with "all Ego related rolls").


Interesting that your initial response is to look for a way around the mechanics of your disads.

This is informative. This sheds some light on why you prefer the "i will get mad at you" take instead of the "here is how it plays out" approach.

i think i am starting to lean towrds advising you to kick him out. he can then go find a game where the Gm is a little more in sync with his tastes and you will have removed this irritant from your game. Thats a win/win all around.

However, if thats not your preference, consider that its easy, simplicity itself, for an angry GM to rationalize perfectly sound reasons for wrecking his own campaign. Whether he thinks he is doing it to spite a player who has ticked him off or not is irrelevent. You have the single most stand out option to take this character's action and ram it down all their throats until they choke on it with UNTIL agents coming to arrest him and all the PCs having to decide where to stand and their support being pulled and warp speed Un resolutions and heck to gosh why stop their why not just nuke the s-o-b?

or...

if payback means less than fun for your players....

you can reign in the four horsemen of the ticked-off-GM and instead simply use this to turn a little heat on... having investigations starting and moving slowly and giving the TEAM... you know the PLAYERS... the people who are supposedly the focus of the game, to examine this and deal with it.

If the team's attitude is "hey, they got what they deserved, then you have a benchmark for how they observed the events. If the team is appalled and confront their teammate, you have a great set of roleplaying scenes. if the team is divided, you have even more scenes.

or it can be about UNTIL troopers showing up to arrest him and nano-giffy UN actions so that its really about your NPCs exacting revenge...

Your call.

Simple answer to your question... knowing only the one sided presentation... i would not have handled it as heavy handed and used the NPCs to drive this from an issue into a confrontation as quickly. You effectively ramped up the severity of the action, making the problem even worse than it was and it sounds like maybe this all happens so quickly the players characters do not get a chance to deal with it themselves before it gets out of hand.

(Wouldn't an ego roll have been simpler than all that?) :-)

Don't get even, get better!

[regnak]

New here with a few questions for various posters:

1Why does the UN care more about a few people killed in this incident through negligence than all the people Eurostar has murdered across the globe?
2Why isn't Leichtenstein getting what Afghanistan got for harboring Al-Queda? That is invaded. Doesn't Eurostar have a higher body count?
3Why would the countries of Europe give a damn about a few people in Leich getting killed by accident when they are harboring the worst terrorists in Europe?
4Why hasn't Fiacho made the biggest misttake of his life by letting the world know where Eurostar is based?

I'd appreciate some logical answers here with people and nations acting realistically. That is caring more about people who have done things to them(Eurostar) than what someone did to someone's elses flunkies.

It seems to me that many have gotten carried away with damning the player and are letting the mass murderers go scot free. :confused:

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by tesuji
Thats cool and if all your players understand your house rules and were not confused into thinking you were playing by 5e rules, then all is fine.

However, there does seem to be some confusion about that point.

I would observe that had you actually used the book rules and enforced the book lim then that character would have needed an ego roll, perhaps a hefty one at -5, and if he had failed then his disad would have "been shown as a disad" in hard and fast obviousness and this whole problem would have been avoided as you told him that his character could not do that.

First off, the name of the game is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. If you want to let the dice dictate, feel free. I choose not to. I expect a player taking a psych lim to take it seriously - not as something the character will try to circumvent whenever it becomes a drawback, but an integral part of his personality.

I will agree that the player would better have stated that, due to the extenuating circumstances of the situation (whatever he perceived them to be), Stellar was forced to make the hard choice of not only failing to protect an innocent, but personally endangering them, and asked for a roll. If the GM allows one (see below) and if he blows it, he CANNOT take that action. If he makes it, he can take that action. And he must bear the consequences - he has killed several innocent people, and the weight of international law is justifiably brought against him. Or is it your position that he made his EGO roll (or lacked any disadvantage precluding the action in the first place), so the world should accept whatever action he took?

Now, back to that roll. The rules actually state that a "total" limitation (and at 20 points, I assume that's what it was) an ego roll would be at a -5 minimum, if the GM chooses to allow one at all. Technically, the GM was within his rights to say "NOPE! You took the disad, so you won't endanger innocents like that. Stellar remembers the loss of life last time and just can't do it!" Hey, you want to freely endanger innocents, buy the limitation down (to be entitled to roll) or off.


Originally posted by tesuji
Now, maybe i am denser than most, but...

Please...no straight lines ;) But I don't think your interpretations are unreasonable, just favouring the mechanical over the role play more than I prefer.


Originally posted by tesuji
playing by the rule and having the mechanics come to the fore and avoiding a major blowup type thing seems a far cry a better end result than a system which basically seems to be based on "do it right or i will get mad at you the player". I prefer a much more game oriented resolution than me getting mad at my players.

"Getting mad at the players" is in the vein of "Stellar is struck and killed by a metor - make a new character". In my view, the GM is well within his rights to play out the consequences of Stellar's rash action. Hopefully, there were come consequences to this similar move previously so it's not wholly without warning.

But you are right - the GM was clearly ticked off. The player had, as I read this, violated the ground rules of the campaign by playing "get the villains and sort the body count out later". Not for the first time, either.


Originally posted by tesuji
Seriously, by removing the mechanical and in game methods of applying disads, you have moved yourself into a position where you are faced with being angry with the player and forcing rather severe consequences affecting the whole game (not just his character, but everyone else too0 as ammeans of payback for him not playing as well as you would have preferred. That frankly looks like a fairly sucky corner to have painted YOURSELF into.

Arguably, if you had instead used the ego roll as the book rules suggest, you PROBABZLY would not have ended up trashing your player in a one sided presentation of the events on a public BBS.

The ego roll failure is a measure of loss of control of their character and actions. in my experience, being told the cannot take the action they choose or having their own character's actions dictated by the GM is one of if not the single most hated results in a game. They show up to PLAY their character, not to see him played. having psyche lims dictate their action on failed rolls... that teaches them quickly.

So is your position that, if Stellar made the ego roll (or just never had a psych lim in the first place), the GM should not consider the possible reaction of the rest of the world to his actions? Headline: "Stellar kills six - Acquitted by virtue of Making his Ego Roll" :confused:


Originally posted by tesuji
Interesting that your initial response is to look for a way around the mechanics of your disads.

Frankly, the disad to me is a role playing one more than mechanical. Unless I'm serious about playing the limitation, I wouldn't take the disad. Now if I'm damned either way, THEN the character might make an ego roll to take SOME action rather than stand by helplessly and watch as everyone dies, but that was not the situation as presented. If Patriot's campaign generally followed the "roll your ego roll and the limitation is overruled" approach, Stellar should have known a roll was needed. If they previously followed the "onus on you to role play" approach, then he should have played his limitation.


Originally posted by tesuji
This is informative. This sheds some light on why you prefer the "i will get mad at you" take instead of the "here is how it plays out" approach.

"This is how the world reacts" is a "here is how it plays out" approach. The character has taken actions. Actions have consequences.


Originally posted by tesuji
i think i am starting to lean towrds advising you to kick him out. he can then go find a game where the Gm is a little more in sync with his tastes and you will have removed this irritant from your game. Thats a win/win all around.

However, if thats not your preference, consider that its easy, simplicity itself, for an angry GM to rationalize perfectly sound reasons for wrecking his own campaign. Whether he thinks he is doing it to spite a player who has ticked him off or not is irrelevent. You have the single most stand out option to take this character's action and ram it down all their throats until they choke on it with UNTIL agents coming to arrest him and all the PCs having to decide where to stand and their support being pulled and warp speed Un resolutions and heck to gosh why stop their why not just nuke the s-o-b?

or...

if payback means less than fun for your players....

you can reign in the four horsemen of the ticked-off-GM and instead simply use this to turn a little heat on... having investigations starting and moving slowly and giving the TEAM... you know the PLAYERS... the people who are supposedly the focus of the game, to examine this and deal with it.
If the team's attitude is "hey, they got what they deserved, then you have a benchmark for how they observed the events. If the team is appalled and confront their teammate, you have a great set of roleplaying scenes. if the team is divided, you have even more scenes.

I think Patriot is setting a reasonable scenario - and it is now the players' prerogative to deal with it. How they choose to deal with it should, and from Patriot's comments will, influence how the world sees them.

You know, Eurostar also has no regard for innocent life, and that doesn't contradict their psych lims. Should UNTIL back off hunting them too?


Originally posted by tesuji
Simple answer to your question... knowing only the one sided presentation... i would not have handled it as heavy handed and used the NPCs to drive this from an issue into a confrontation as quickly. You effectively ramped up the severity of the action, making the problem even worse than it was and it sounds like maybe this all happens so quickly the players characters do not get a chance to deal with it themselves before it gets out of hand.

Seems to me the players are being given an opportunity. When last Patriot posted, some members had been contacted about the UNTIL and UN actions. The ball's in their court to take what actions they see fit. I'll be interested in hearing how it plays out, Patriot.


Originally posted by tesuji
(Wouldn't an ego roll have been simpler than all that?) :-)

Let's make it even simpler:

GM: "Stellar, roll 3d6".

Player: "9"

GM: "OK, you have captured three members of Eurostar and rescued your teammate, with no loss of life and limited property damage. What do you do next? And keep your dice out!"

Making it simple isn't always the best approach. Neither you nor I, I am sure, would say "There's the flavor text - make a roll to determine how the scenario ends up" - it's an absurd overall example. But, if the two conflict, dramatic sense and common sense must replace or overrule both the rules and the dice.

Now I agree with you that Patriot needs to assess the game itself - will the players react to this as a reasonable consequence of the actions of one of their characters, or will they get teary-eyed about how unfair it is that the NPC's can make logical decisions and events sometimes run away from them? Hopefully, they are mature enough that they will take the former course of action. The game is about heroes overcoming adversity - and they've got a real adversity to overcome now!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by regnak
New here with a few questions for various posters:

1Why does the UN care more about a few people killed in this incident through negligence than all the people Eurostar has murdered across the globe?

No one has said they will not pursue Eurostar. Do the police ignore burglaries because murderers are worse?


Originally posted by regnak
2Why isn't Leichtenstein getting what Afghanistan got for harboring Al-Queda? That is invaded. Doesn't Eurostar have a higher body count?

Perhaps they will be. Perhaps not. Let's remember that not everyone on the planet agrees that this was an appropriate approach to take, and that includes some European nations. Let's also not let this become a "real world politics" thread, except to the extent (as here) that it is relevant to the main topic.


Originally posted by regnak
3Why would the countries of Europe give a damn about a few people in Leich getting killed by accident when they are harboring the worst terrorists in Europe?

Because they do not universally agree that using terrorism to combat terrorism is appropriate?


Originally posted by regnak
4Why hasn't Fiacho made the biggest misttake of his life by letting the world know where Eurostar is based?

Perhaps he has. But our story follows the heroes, not the villains. I don't think Patriot has mentiooned what has happened to Euqrostar. I also don't believe he has indicated whether it is known that Leich was knowingly and willingly harbouring Eurostar or if that's just where they are now seen to have been hiding.


Originally posted by regnak
I'd appreciate some logical answers here with people and nations acting realistically. That is caring more about people who have done things to them(Eurostar) than what someone did to someone's elses flunkies.

Eurostar has killed civilians. Team Vanguard has killed civilians. It seems that the world is concerned with the latter, but I haven't heard anything to say they are ignoring the former. Nor is any action being taken against the team, only the individual terrorist. They are not, for example, calling for an airstrike on Team Vanguard HQ

[regnak]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
No one has said they will not pursue Eurostar. Do the police ignore burglaries because murderers are worse?

False analogy here the UN is putting the burglary on the fast track and no mention has been made of the murderers.



Perhaps they will be. Perhaps not. Let's remember that not everyone on the planet agrees that this was an appropriate approach to take, and that includes some European nations. Let's also not let this become a "real world politics" thread, except to the extent (as here) that it is relevant to the main topic.


But it is relevant and not only has the original GM mentioned no action against Leich neither have most of the posters. Furthermore countries become more willing to act when they are hurt or fear getting hurt. The Europeans got extemely concerned over Bosnia, they should be in a state of hysteria over Eurostar being sheltered. Also you are confusing Afghanistan and Iraq. There was much for support for Afghanistan and that is the analogy here.



Because they do not universally agree that using terrorism to combat terrorism is appropriate?

I asked for reasonable answers instead you equate reckless negligence with mass murder? Not the same, but even if they were you still have demonstrated why the other countries would care more about the deaths of Leich citizens than the death of their own.





Perhaps he has. But our story follows the heroes, not the villains. I don't think Patriot has mentiooned what has happened to Euqrostar. I also don't believe he has indicated whether it is known that Leich was knowingly and willingly harbouring Eurostar or if that's just where they are now seen to have been hiding.

He has said nothing here about anything happening to Eurostar.



Eurostar has killed civilians. Team Vanguard has killed civilians. It seems that the world is concerned with the latter, but I haven't heard anything to say they are ignoring the former. Nor is any action being taken against the team, only the individual terrorist. They are not, for example, calling for an airstrike on Team Vanguard HQ

:rolleyes: Reason, I asked for reason and you give me nothing but distortions. You distort the matter by calling someone who screwed up a terrorist and distort again by equate his group with a bunch of murderers! The response described is not remotely realistic. Realsitic would be Eurostar once located would be the #1 priority. The bungling player would be gotten to sometime down the road. It's called priorities.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak
False analogy here the UN is putting the burglary on the fast track and no mention has been made of the murderers.




But it is relevant and not only has the original GM mentioned no action against Leich neither have most of the posters. Furthermore countries become more willing to act when they are hurt or fear getting hurt. The Europeans got extemely concerned over Bosnia, they should be in a state of hysteria over Eurostar being sheltered. Also you are confusing Afghanistan and Iraq. There was much for support for Afghanistan and that is the analogy here.



I asked for reasonable answers instead you equate reckless negligence with mass murder? Not the same, but even if they were you still have demonstrated why the other countries would care more about the deaths of Leich citizens than the death of their own.





He has said nothing here about anything happening to Eurostar.



:rolleyes: Reason, I asked for reason and you give me nothing but distortions. You distort the matter by calling someone who screwed up a terrorist and distort again by equate his group with a bunch of murderers! The response described is not remotely realistic. Realsitic would be Eurostar once located would be the #1 priority. The bungling player would be gotten to sometime down the road. It's called priorities. You don't seem very open to reason. I think you have your mind made up but I'll give it a try.

Incidentally, reckless negligence that costs a person's life is, by the laws in my State and many more, called Reckless Homicide. That means it is murder.

You are working under the false assumption that the United Nations is limited to one set of actions at a time. You are also forgetting that the focus being on what happens to the player-characters is because they are player-characters. What happens to Eurostar? The UN and various states probably mobilize what they can as quickly as they can. What happens to Lichtenstein? Several states in the UN probably amp up a lot of pressure and start making demands. What does this have to do with the players in the short-run? Not that much. It will affect them later in some capacity or another.

[regnak]

Originally posted by Patriot


Eurostar is a powerful Terrorist orginization in my game, the only safe haven they have is in Leichenstein and they have a strong contact with the PM of that country.




Hugh:
Here you go from the Gms own mouth Eurostar has a safe haven in Leichenstein. If he himself says they have a safe haven(still!!!) Why do you assume any action is being taken against Eurostar?

[regnak]

Originally posted by Agent X
You don't seem very open to reason. I think you have your mind made up but I'll give it a try.

And your side does not?



Incidentally, reckless negligence that costs a person's life is, by the laws in my State and many more, called Reckless Homicide. That means it is murder.

So prove that all murderers=terrorists. You can't which makes Hughs arguments just imflammatory. There are different degrees of murder and punishment.



You are working under the false assumption that the United Nations is limited to one set of actions at a time. You are also forgetting that the focus being on what happens to the player-characters is because they are player-characters. What happens to Eurostar? The UN and various states probably mobilize what they can as quickly as they can. What happens to Lichtenstein? Several states in the UN probably amp up a lot of pressure and start making demands. What does this have to do with the players in the short-run? Not that much. It will affect them later in some capacity or another.

First off the speed of the reactions tells us what the first priority was, the screwup by Stellar. Second the GM's own post says they have a safe haven in Lech. Not that they used to have, that they have. What UN action???

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak
And your side does not?



So prove that all murderers=terrorists. You can't which makes Hughs arguments just imflammatory. There are different degrees of murder and punishment.



First off the speed of the reactions tells us what the first priority was, the screwup by Stellar. Second the GM's own post says they have a safe haven in Lech. Not that they used to have, that they have. What UN action???
The only side I have on this one is reason and experience.

I don't have to prove Hugh's statements and why are they inflammatory? Do you have a dog in this hunt or something?

Hello! The GM wasn't concerned with how to deal with Eurostar because he had that one figured out. He was asking for advice on how to handle a player doing something really out of character for a superhero. I don't remember whether he said how well known to the governments or the public Eurostar's save haven in Lichtenstein was. If he didn't, why are you making so many assumptions. You sound like someone who has done something this bone-headed in a Champions game before.

EDIT: Just checked his post. He didn't say how known the safe haven was. You seem to be working from a conclusion and assuming supporting evidence in a vacuum of information.

[regnak]

Originally posted by Agent X
The only side I have on this one is reason and experience.. Sure you do.



I don't have to prove Hugh's statements and why are they inflammatory? Do you have a dog in this hunt or something?

Calling someone a terrorist is inflammatory. You then said the player was a murderer in your state, apparently supporting Hugh. And so I asked you to prove that all murderers=terrorists. It's not that hard to follow. My dog is that this seems totally insane and the comments of various people have been making me go wtf?



Hello! The GM wasn't concerned with how to deal with Eurostar because he had that one figured out. He was asking for advice on how to handle a player doing something really out of character for a superhero.

Actually the whole point of my first post if you bothered to read it is that there was nothing but emotion/anger and the player. This results in an insane situation.



I don't remember whether he said how well known to the governments or the public Eurostar's save haven in Lichtenstein was..

They just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?




If he didn't, why are you making so many assumptions.
You sound like someone who has done something this bone-headed in a Champions game before.



And you accuse me of making assumptions??:rolleyes: Not only are you dead wrong but you resort to attacks when you fail with reason.




EDIT: Just checked his post. He didn't say how known the safe haven was. You seem to be working from a conclusion and assuming supporting evidence in a vacuum of information.

To repeat ,they just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak
Sure you do.



Calling someone a terrorist is inflammatory. You then said the player was a murderer in your state, apparently supporting Hugh. And so I asked you to prove that all murderers=terrorists. It's not that hard to follow. My dog is that this seems totally insane and the comments of various people have been making me go wtf?



Actually the whole point of my first post if you bothered to read it is that there was nothing but emotion/anger and the player. This results in an insane situation.



They just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?





And you accuse me of making assumptions??:rolleyes: Not only are you dead wrong but you resort to attacks when you fail with reason.




To repeat ,they just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand? You've been playing too long when you get offended enough to mix up the player and the player character. Yeah, the player characer is a muderer.

As for murderer=terrorist, they aren't interchangeable terms although they are often complement one another.

Not much of an attack. I just wanted to point out what you are sounding like. Your response has been shrill so I chose to be very candid with you. I do wonder if you do these sorts of things. It's not much of a stretch if you actually identify with this player character so much as to confuse the player with the character. Of course, you may have trouble expressing yourself when you post. Which is it?

There you go with assumptions: What we know is that Lichtenstein complained about the heroes killing some of their citizens and destroying a historic site. We do not know if they mentioned Eurostar. If they did, we still do not know if they said, "Oh btw, we knew Eurostar was there all the time and we like them." You are just making a bunch of assumptions about the scenario that you have no basis to make.

[regnak]

Originally posted by Agent X
You've been playing too long when you get offended enough to mix up the player and the player character. Yeah, the player characer is a muderer.

Sigh, wrong again. I am offended by the total lack reason shown in this. I haven't had a Champions player live within 50 miles of me for 10+ years. Everyone else moved away. It's the bizzare reasoning that gets me. And to call someone on bs in their post (as in the terrorist argument) doesn't make me id with anybody. It justmakes me non tolerant of bs!




As for murderer=terrorist, they aren't interchangeable terms /quote]

Which was my point that using them so was inflammatory.



[quote]
Not much of an attack. I just wanted to point out what you are sounding like. Your response has been shrill so I chose to be very candid with you. I do wonder if you do these sorts of things.

Sure it is, you cannot answer the posts so you attack the poster. I just told you I never did anything like that and you repeat your charge only slightly weakened.



It's not much of a stretch if you actually identify with this player character so much as to confuse the player with the character. Of course, you may have trouble expressing yourself when you post. Which is it?


Another false assumption and another dig. I don't identify with the PC at all. It's the lunacy of the response I questioned in my initial post. Kick out the player, kill the PC fine. Come for endorsement of Bizzarro world? That's the lunacy that got me.



There you go with assumptions: What we know is that Lichtenstein complained about the heroes killing some of their citizens and destroying a historic site. We do not know if they mentioned Eurostar. If they did, we still do not know if they said, "Oh btw, we knew Eurostar was there all the time and we like them." You are just making a bunch of assumptions about the scenario that you have no basis to make.

Pot, Kettle, Black. Sure you can assume whatever the hell you want about me falsely. But I can't work with the info given! :rolleyes: Hypocrite!

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak
Sigh, wrong again. I am offended by the total lack reason shown in this. I haven't had a Champions player live within 50 miles of me for 10+ years. Everyone else moved away. It's the bizzare reasoning that gets me. And to call someone on bs in their post (as in the terrorist argument) doesn't make me id with anybody. It justmakes me non tolerant of bs!




Sure it is, you cannot answer the posts so you attack the poster. I just told you I never did anything like that and you repeat your charge only slightly weakened.



Another false assumption and another dig. I don't identify with the PC at all. It's the lunacy of the response I questioned in my initial post. Kick out the player, kill the PC fine. Come for endorsement of Bizzarro world? That's the lunacy that got me.



Pot, Kettle, Black. Sure you can assume whatever the hell you want about me falsely. But I can't work with the info given! :rolleyes: Hypocrite! I have answered your post. You are assuming too much and that is the central argument against your arguments. That you assume I am doing the same about your motivations doesn't invalidate the criticism.

Bottome Line: You come off like someone who can't be reasoned with when you speak to Hugh like that. I have participated with discussions with Hugh and many others on these boards and have very seldom seen anyone go as over the top (except in NGD) as you have. This makes me wonder about a lot of things. That you have been so shrill makes me wonder out loud.

[KA.]

Wow, first of all, let me say that this discussion is getting a little heated.

I am not trying to pour fuel on the fire.

One thing that everyone needs to remember is that we DO NOT KNOW very much about the background of this campaign.

It is possible that the player in question has been warned repeatedly about "crossing the line" and that Patriot felt this was the only way to get his point across.

It is also possible that the player short-circuited an elaborate GM set-up, and that Patriot overreacted.

We just don't know.

Based on what others have posted, I have a few comments.

1) Tesuji - I agree with you that, unless this was a repeated problem with this player, the GM should have asked for an Ego roll.
I think the reason for the rule, is that players can sometimes get caught up in the moment and do things that their characters wouldn't.
It is all very well for a player to do something like endangering their DNPC in the heat of a battle.
Buffy : "I'll ask Giles to try to throw the switch and open the door."
It would be quite different for a real breathing person to put their actual wife, husband, child, friend, in the line of fire.

An Ego roll is a good way to keep players from making horrendous, campaign-changing, blunders, because they didn't stop to think.

I don't think there should be a roll every time the player is about to do something stupid, but if they are about to directly violate a major Psych Lim, then it may be time to roll.

If you think this is too "easy" on the players, I have a decent solution to the problem.

Make Ego Rolls "public".
What do I mean?
I have been reading the Marvel "Essential Fantastic Four" reprints.
In them, The Human Torch has made a pledge to never use his flame to directly harm someone.
Soon, the entire underworld knows it, and sometimes they take advantage of it.
If a player is about to do something, in front of adversaries, and they get "reined in" by an Ego roll, I would consider the following to have happened.
Player: "I am going to use my RKA Fire Blast against Thug One."
GM: "I told you that they don't appear to be armored, that would violate your Code vs. Killing. You can't do it unless you make an Ego Roll."
Player: "Never Mind!"
GM: "You start to unleash your Fire Blast against the thug, but at the last moment you say: "I can't to that! I've sworn to never take a life!"
Thug: "Well, that's nice to know. I'm sure the boss will be interested, too!"

If players play according to their Psych Lims, then there is no reason for them to become known so easily, other than through careful observation over the course of time.

But, those who do not role-play can be "outed" against their will.

Reward the innocent, punish the guilty.

2) Hugh - I too would much rather have my players roll-play their characters than have to "force" them with things like Ego rolls. I also understand that some GM's would rather do things in a more "cause and effect" than "mechanical" way.

But, the rules are there for a reason, and rather than have a player blow an entire campaign with one bad decision, I think an Ego roll would have been the lesser of the evils.

Again, I don't know the background. If this player has been warned repeatedly about taking this kind of action, and they had reason to believe that there was an alternative course that would have worked out with no harm to innocents, then the GM's actions were justified. But we just don't know.

Some GM's delight in desiging "no win" scenarios for their players. If you do what the player did you are reckless and irresponsible. If you wait to see what is going to happen, then it turns out that the entire thing was a trap and now your teammate is dead because you "failed to act".

The real question is: What is the problem?

A rogue player who won't follow the genre, and his psych lims?

Or a GM who expects him players to act like Charlie Brown and keep trying to kick the football, even though they know Lucy is going to snatch it away?

Most players don't have Charlie Brown's patience. They will eventually come up with the obvious alternative of kicking Lucy.

Or taking action that will "blow up" a campaign that they are frustrated with.

It could easily be either one.

We just don't know.

KA

[Hugh Neilson]

Just for the record, I don't disagree with any of Agent X's comments, so I'm not revisiting those items here.


Originally posted by regnak
Sigh, wrong again. I am offended by the total lack reason shown in this. I haven't had a Champions player live within 50 miles of me for 10+ years. Everyone else moved away. It's the bizzare reasoning that gets me. And to call someone on bs in their post (as in the terrorist argument) doesn't make me id with anybody. It justmakes me non tolerant of bs!

[best William Shatner] Must...resist...obvious...snide... remark.

Everyone else moved away.

NO NO MUST RESIST!!!

Let's talk about terrorists...Team Vanguard:

- Slips into a foreign nation without their consent. An assumption, but given they were rescuing a captured teammate, were they likely to announce their intent? Given Leich is harbouring Eurostar (whether or not that is generally known) would they grant permission? So far, TV is breaking laws, but I doubt anyone would challenge them seriously. "After all, they have saved the world on several occasions. Surely we can view their actions in light of those past heroic actions."

- Endangers innocent lives and causes property damage. "They were fighting for their lives against Eurostar." Now the next phrase should be "And they prevented loss of life".

- But they didn't. In fact, the only deaths attributed to Stellar's reckless disregard. He leveled a building , taking helpless civilians down with him.

To summarize: Sneak into foreign nation, destroy property, kill people. Note that they didn't kill Eurostar - they killed civilians. So, that's not terrorism?

Add to this the fact that Leich/Eurostar will almost certainly bring all the political pressure they can to bear, and it's pretty easy to see how this can blow up.

As for Eurostar, I bet they don't have a base whose knowledge is known to the public. I suspect their connection with Leich remains unknown to the world at large. Now, the PC's may just be able to prove that connection which, while not letting Stellar off the hook, would go a long way to showing the team was not the villain in this piece.

Patriot: BIG QUESTION: Does anyone besides the Team Vanguard amd the winery owner even KNOW Eurostar was involved? Or are they playing this up as "murderous paranoprmals destroy historic landmark, kill six" and leaving Eurostar out of it entirely? The latter seems likely if the winery owners were in on it - especially if they are "Eurostar's lackeys" (or if Eurostar has their families secreted away somewhere).

Sounds like you've got the seeds for a pretty spectacular adventure/story arc here.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

First off, the name of the game is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. If you want to let the dice dictate, feel free.

When the system has clear and distinct rules for handling a situation mechanically and the alternative is the "ticked off Gm gets even"... give me the ROLL anytime.

Pay attention to one thing... one item we know for absolutely certain...no questions asked...

This "GM" has admitted to letting this event tick him off, his post reads clearly as a distraught or angry individual posting a one sided rant against his player.

How bad is this player? i have no idea, since i have not heard anything from him, just a one sided beef session.

How bad is this GM? I know he seems to have let his temper get the better of him and let this situation tick him off instead of remaining as neutral as a Gm ought to be.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Or is it your position that he made his EGO roll (or lacked any disadvantage precluding the action in the first place), so the world should accept whatever action he took?

Thats silly. You make me laugh sometimes.

it is also not myposition that the GM should run naked thru the streets shouting "Hugh is my man" either.

The consequences should fit well within the story of the campaign and should not be driven by being ticked off at the player.

As others have stated, the events seem a little too quick, too overwhelming onesided and IMO seem much more to be a case of "Ok now i will show you" as opposed to an obvious development from the events.

Its easy to "get even" when you are the GM and have everyone react in the ways to escalate a problem... its usually better to have reasoned responses and DEFINITELY not to go bringing in big world altering developments UNTIL YOU HAVE COOLED DOWN.

We do not know how bad the player's actions were... just what was reported to us by his admitted ticked off GM in a one sided rant online.

We do know how bad the GMs actions were, from his own descriptions and comments.

When he askes for help and opinions, we can list 100000 ways for him to GET THE PLAYER or to stand to his guns... but since the player is NOT INVOLVED HERE AT ALL that wont help.

What we can do is try and get the GM to look at his actions and find better ways of handling it. My first advice to him is "When you feel ticked off at a player, find a way to end the session soon." if you cannot elegantly end the session soon, grab some OTHER characters hunted and throw in a sudden "fill out the evening" skirmish to eat up the time.

Then LATER AFTER CALMING DOWN, start thinking about the way to handle the events.

As a general rule, launching campaign altering events (heck anytime it involves resolutions and world political jyhads) when you are ticked off is BAD JUJU.

I would not think these to be very controversial points.

go figure.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now, back to that roll. The rules actually state that a "total" limitation (and at 20 points, I assume that's what it was) an ego roll would be at a -5 minimum, if the GM chooses to allow one at all.

20 points tells us little. I would not assume this is total... since the frequency can be 15 pts. More common in my games would be VERY COMMON STRONG. Who knows?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Technically, the GM was within his rights to say "NOPE! You took the disad, so you won't endanger innocents like that. Stellar remembers the loss of life last time and just can't do it!" Hey, you want to freely endanger innocents, buy the limitation down (to be entitled to roll) or off.

I concur. The GM could have **enforced** the LIMITATION and i think he should. In case you missed it, having the player make the roll is ONE WAY OF ENFORCING THE LIM.

The problem here is, as i see it, the GM CHOSE DELIBERATELY to NOT ENFORCE THE LIM and then got mad at the player for the event.

Whether he enforces the lim by disallowing any roll and dictating player character actions or by requiring the roll and accepting the results and consequences is of neither mind to me. Both are VALID choices. Both are clearly superior to sitting on his hands, allowing the lim to go unenforced and then getting ticked off at it.

That option is poor GMing to me. plain and simple.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Please...no straight lines ;) But I don't think your interpretations are unreasonable, just favouring the mechanical over the role play more than I prefer.

I favor GMs doing their jobs and handling the lims in play rather than letting them slide and getting ticked off later.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"Getting mad at the players" is in the vein of "Stellar is struck and killed by a metor - make a new character".

There are a great many shades and levels of it. You describe a very stupid case. Can you accept that there are GMs clever enough to not be that heavy handed? i can.

From the tone and tenor of his posts, the very fact that he brought his beef one sided to a public forum, and his own admission of being ticked off at the player.... i have little doubt as to what his actions intoned.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In my view, the GM is well within his rights to play out the consequences of Stellar's rash action. Hopefully, there were come consequences to this similar move previously so it's not wholly without warning.

We have no idea? none were mentioned.

i agree that the events should play out and conseqwuences occur, but those consequences should develop the story not derail it. This sounds like a train wreck building up steam and the GM pushing all the more as opposed to a difficult story of personal nature unfolding. It sounds like a ticked off GM going knee jerk, not a crafty Gm running one of the more interesting personal drama arcs.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But you are right - the GM was clearly ticked off. The player had, as I read this, violated the ground rules of the campaign by playing "get the villains and sort the body count out later". Not for the first time, either.

When you asses the player's action, keep in mind you have one side and a clearly biased and admitted ticked off perspective to draw from and nothing else. You have NOTHING from the player to go on.

When assessing the GM's actions, i have the scene from his own perspective.

I consider the latter a more reliable set of info than the former.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

So is your position that, if Stellar made the ego roll (or just never had a psych lim in the first place), the GM should not consider the possible reaction of the rest of the world to his actions? Headline: "Stellar kills six - Acquitted by virtue of Making his Ego Roll" :confused:

Again, you make me laugh.

No i do not hold to that opinion. Nor do i hold to the opinion that the Gm should climb trees covered in honey wearing nothing but white knee sox.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Frankly, the disad to me is a role playing one more than mechanical. Unless I'm serious about playing the limitation, I wouldn't take the disad.

Thats wonderful. I like parfiats too. I like Bojangles chicken too.

I also prefer a GM ENFORCING A LIM ****IN PLAY**** to a GM chosing, electing, making a concious decision to let one slide and then getting ticked at the player over it.

The player getting ticked at you for you enforcing a lim he took points for... thats Ok and manageable.

You getting ticked at a player because you CHOSE not to enforce his lim and he did not do your job for you... thats BAD GMing.

Why do you draw from this the notion that this somehow equates to not having NPCs react accordingly or events have consequences? That baffles me.

OK lets spell it out in simple terms...

HEY, you GMS, any in game policy which results in you going to be ticked at a player is a BAD POLICY.

So, deciding that the way to handle DISADVANTAGES is to hope the player handles them for you and get ticked when they don't is NOT a good policy.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"This is how the world reacts" is a "here is how it plays out" approach. The character has taken actions. Actions have consequences.

And those consequences should not escalte or be escalated by the GM to world spanning or potentially game breaking level, i repeat **by the GM**, when he is ticked off.

Sounds like he needed a timeout to figure out where to go.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I think Patriot is setting a reasonable scenario - and it is now the players' prerogative to deal with it.

The instant timing, intensity and total one sidedness of the reactions seem to me to not be reasonable. hearing he made these decisions while ticked off makes them make a lot more sense, in a very wrong way.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You know, Eurostar also has no regard for innocent life, and that doesn't contradict their psych lims. Should UNTIL back off hunting them too?

Again with the humor.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Seems to me the players are being given an opportunity. When last Patriot posted, some members had been contacted about the UNTIL and UN actions. The ball's in their court to take what actions they see fit. I'll be interested in hearing how it plays out, Patriot.

Yes but IMO it went too far too quickly... the character went from "what happened" to "react to what my NPCs did." it would have been great and wonderful for them to have had a chance to meet themselves before the UN had time to meet, reach a consensus, and send out the troops. Wouldn't it?

If the pacing was a little slower, a little more thoughtful and a little less knee jerk, the characters might have had a chance to be proactive, moving to initiate events not just react to the already done deal "we want to try your friend" levels of reaction.

His world leaders... they all acted ticked off. His UN, it acted very ticked off. All his NPCS seem ticked off. Wonder if that had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the GM running them being TICKED OFF at the time he decided their course of actions?

Do you think, maybe, just a little, that did? or is this still a case of totally bad player and totally good GM?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's make it even simpler:
GM: "Stellar, roll 3d6".
Player: "9"
GM: "OK, you have captured three members of Eurostar and rescued your teammate, with no loss of life and limited property damage. What do you do next? And keep your dice out!"

Again with the humor.

Once again, and i promise to type slowly so you can keep up... a game policy or house rule which relies on GM GETTING TICKED OFF as an element is BAD. One which enforces the rules and leaves everyone NOT TICKED OFF is BETTER.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Making it simple isn't always the best approach. Neither you nor I, I am sure, would say "There's the flavor text - make a roll to determine how the scenario ends up" - it's an absurd overall example. But, if the two conflict, dramatic sense and common sense must replace or overrule both the rules and the dice.

MUST? Honestly, as rules lite and drama heavy as i am, when you play a game and use a system as rules heavy and mechanics precise as HERO, i would not say that dramatic sense and common sense overrules mechanics every time.

HOWEVER, that is neither here nor there. This is a case of two policies...

policy 1: if you dont roleplay your lim to my liking i wont enforce the lim but i will get mad and you dont want that.

policy 2: if you wont roleplay your lims i will enforce their mechanics.

The latter is CLEARLY SUPERIOR to the former. This Gm used the former.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now I agree with you that Patriot needs to assess the game itself - will the players react to this as a reasonable consequence of the actions of one of their characters, or will they get teary-eyed about how unfair it is that the NPC's can make logical decisions and events sometimes run away from them?

If i were the player i would be incensed that the Un gets all this time before we move. More importantly, out of game, i would pull the Gm aside and say that NPCS blah blah is fine and good but this look like he is just ticked off and getting even. If his responses were akin to what he has said here, i would thank him for the game and walk. I would almost certainly offer up a game run by me for those interested, and even ask him to join to try and show him IN PRACTICE other, better ways of dealing with such events. (This assumnes i was not the BAD PLAYER.)


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Hopefully, they are mature enough that they will take the former course of action. The game is about heroes overcoming adversity - and they've got a real adversity to overcome now!


The game is also about fun and i cannot think of much less fun things than playing in a game where the Gm takes out his own "ticked offs" in the game.

YMMV and clearly does.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by KA.
1) Tesuji - I agree with you that, unless this was a repeated problem with this player, the GM should have asked for an Ego roll. I think the reason for the rule, is that players can sometimes get caught up in the moment and do things that their characters wouldn't. An Ego roll is a good way to keep players from making horrendous, campaign-changing, blunders, because they didn't stop to think. I don't think there should be a roll every time the player is about to do something stupid, but if they are about to directly violate a major Psych Lim, then it may be time to roll.

I see two issues here.

First, the Protective of Innocents. To me, the "right" answer would be to say "Are you sure? That action would violate your Preotection of Innocents." The player can say "Corect, Stellar would not do such a thing.", or (as seems to be the case here) "He works for Fiacho - that's not innocent!". The GM then has the option of agreeing that the character can interpret things that way, requiring an ego roll, or denying the action outright (for a Strong Psych lim, anyway). I'd go for one of the first two - there are mixed issues here that make denying a roll excessive.

Second, assuming the character has taken this act (whether because he had no psych lim, because he made his ego roll or because the GM let the player RP his character and will worry about the disad points later), should he be allowed to sail off scot free? This is a question of campaign logic. Given this opportunity to humiliate the heroes, and their Leich connection, can you really see the villains passing it up? Team Vanguard's actions, and Stellar's recklessness, place them in a very awkward position. Their enemies are in a position to capitalize on that. Even if Stellar hadn't played right into their hands, they would likely have some accusations. But Stellar's actions invite this sort of result.

The final issue you raise, the GM's campaign style, is a legitimate one. However, I prefer to assume Patriot isn't hosing the players, meaning that the player is out of line. The possibility you describe certainly exists, but I don't think a GM that interested in screwing over his players would be posting here for second opinions. [Plus, how could anyone who's carried Cap's shield ever be so deceitful?];)

[ChuckB]

Well...

1 From your description , the winery-staff seemed to be aware that their bosses were EuroStar and they didn't seem to concerned about it. They were working for terrorists , so they're not "innocents".

2 An UNTIL raid on the winery might've had just as much (or more ) collateral damage.

3 With Eurostar on the loose, why is the UN so concerned with Team Vanguard ? (unless there's some behind-the-scenes blackmail/mind-control stuff going on.)

4 If Stellar had a CVK , then he was probably excessive.

[KA.]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I see two issues here.

First, the Protective of Innocents. To me, the "right" answer would be to say "Are you sure? That action would violate your Preotection of Innocents." The player can say "Corect, Stellar would not do such a thing.", or (as seems to be the case here) "He works for Fiacho - that's not innocent!". The GM then has the option of agreeing that the character can interpret things that way, requiring an ego roll, or denying the action outright (for a Strong Psych lim, anyway). I'd go for one of the first two - there are mixed issues here that make denying a roll excessive.

Second, assuming the character has taken this act (whether because he had no psych lim, because he made his ego roll or because the GM let the player RP his character and will worry about the disad points later), should he be allowed to sail off scot free? This is a question of campaign logic. Given this opportunity to humiliate the heroes, and their Leich connection, can you really see the villains passing it up? Team Vanguard's actions, and Stellar's recklessness, place them in a very awkward position. Their enemies are in a position to capitalize on that. Even if Stellar hadn't played right into their hands, they would likely have some accusations. But Stellar's actions invite this sort of result.

The final issue you raise, the GM's campaign style, is a legitimate one. However, I prefer to assume Patriot isn't hosing the players, meaning that the player is out of line. The possibility you describe certainly exists, but I don't think a GM that interested in screwing over his players would be posting here for second opinions. [Plus, how could anyone who's carried Cap's shield ever be so deceitful?];)

Hugh,
First, thanks for the courteous reply in what has become a rather heated thread.

I agree that the GM could just as easily have "asked" if they player was sure rather than "telling" him to make an Ego roll.

I just think that it would have been much better to get some kind of clarification before letting something go down that was going to have such dire consequences for the campaign.

If the player was told that his actions could quite possibly harm or kill innocent people that worked at the castle, and had no known connection to Eurostar, and then he proceeded anyway, I would have no problem with a response from the campaign world.

But I still think that tone is crucial. If all the NPC villains in the campaign act like Ted Bundy, then I am going to start acting like The Punisher.

I don't mean to assume that the GM wanted to "hose" the players, but on the other hand, I have seen plenty of posts on these boards that consisted of:
"Here's what I did . . . I was right, wasn't I?"
Often, once the facts eventually came out, the person was dead wrong, and was looking for someone to help them justify their error to themselves.
(No slam on Patriot is intended by the above, I am just saying that it has happened before.)

One crucial question that I would like to see answered is that of character mortality in Patriot's campaign.
If villains snuff heroes every session or two, extreme measures may be justified.
Even Captain America killed Nazi's in WWII.
It all depends on the circumstances, and we don't seem to be getting any information on those.

KA

[zornwil]

Guys, I think a lot of your points are moot unless and until Patriot enlightens us more on the campaign. I like a spirited speculative debate as much as, often more than, the next guy, but a lot of what you're positing may be way off base.

Personally I'd like to see Patriot's answers to the questions I left as well as many of the suppositions and points y'all made.

As an aside, EGO rolls for pysch lims, yeah it's a book rule, but I think they should be reserved for when either the player feels irresolutely conflicted or the GM really feels a necessity to intervene. That being said, Patriot hasn't given us enough info to judge whether he should have done that during this game. His description of the game (and moreso the teammates' reactions) implies heavily that everyone understood this was a big moral no-no, but the big missing link is what the player was thinking and doing and how he feels about what happened.

Until I hear that I wouldn't be willing too get too deep into the coulda/shouldas.

[Patriot]

For starters, I didnt expect this to get so hostile. I apologize to any who may have been iritated by this.

Also, I apologize for the time between posts, I just worked 2 doubles in a row...Any way on to explanations

Players have infact formed there own opinions on the situation And **no one** on the team is to happy.

The Leichenstein- Eurostar contact isnt known to the outside world.
Panther Was right in the room with the rest of the team when Stellar made his comment , and action.
The way he justified Not giving a damn about the cook Was he is working for eurostar...The winery , A large place, had servants before Eurostar took up residence there.
Stellar doesnt think he made an error, He thinks it is a conspiracy against the team as a whole by Eurostar.

I dont require an EGO roll, I shouldnt need to , all my players are adults. When its worked for the better part of 12 years, I dont see a reason to change it
The Tone/Color of my game four color

The players have dealt with a situation of this magnitude once before. Real time 12 years ago ( I am the only person from the original group) It dealt with a Viper attack on the team base (700+ viper agents) in the city of Chicago, a team member got killed but viper was stopped.

Do the Villians Parley, Rarely, but it has happened.
Eurostar didnt complain about the team , Leichenstein did.
As I posted before, This isnt this first time Stellar has done this, withloss of life..it has been a few years, but those things dont go away like parking tickets.

Eurostar wanted to speak with the team About the UN.That was the only real plot device that had to be dropped....some possibly intresting roleplaying.

The scenario, wasnot a "no-WIN" situation...as a matter of fact, It shouldnt have even been a combat situation

Eurostar is a realitivly quiet orginization, until they spring a plan into action, so no, no one knew there where abouts, except the owners and the team...There is a bit of info I did leave out by accident...In Leichenstein, the major wineries are run by the prince and his underlings.
Dealing with the instant timing issue...It wasnt, the next morning they got info about it, and you need to look a little closer to see it isnt one sided, yes some counries have signed a resolution, but some havent.

Some people seem to be pushing this point a whole lot...I did get tweaked, when he didnt play his disad at all.I will admit that, BUT, he has used the power that way before,and it did the same thing....so it shouldnt now, cause i got irritated a few minutes ago???
Again i must apologize, for a missed detail, the contact by UNTIL of other team members hasnt actually taken place in the game yet(follow me here....some people cant make it to one of my games, but they are Vanguard members, so I ran this secondary scenario to allow them to play, and be involved, Stellar can still pull his bacon out of the fire.

I have never purposely killed, or maimed a character in any game i have ever ran ...And I have been running RPGS since '79,Intresting scenarios, detailed ones, ones that required a bit of thought before blazin away yes .

Stellar was asked about his disads....but he continued

I think I got everything answered...if more pops up I will try and answer quickly.

[Vanguard]

I seem frightening similarities in what Patroit posted and what's happened a couple of times in our game.

Incident 1: The team (AvantGuard) has been trailing a splinter group of Viper for several months. As things started to come to the head, two of the team were captured (due to the Public ID of one of them coming and biting them in the butt). While looking for them, the villainess Blastar contacted the team and infomed them that she wanted to turn coat and as a show of good faith was bringing the captured NPC that she was guarding.

Now, other then the fact that we had fought her just once and she, while not whooping our arses, did make a show of herself, had not once proved that she was dishonorable. The only thing going against her was that she was, technically, the bad guy. In any case, she showed up at the designated spot and we couldn't see any sign that she was going to doulbe cross us. So instead of reacting like the Heros that we were, we attacked. Our GM then called a halt to the game and basically asked us what the hell we were doing since we weren't acting like heros. He pointed out a couple of facts (one of these was that Blastar could've killed Blue Fury at anytime during our attack and had yet to do so, instead she started to flee). We tried to cover ourself by saying that we've been double crossed to many times in the past and while he did accept that he asked if he'd ever pulled anything like that before and has Blastar done anything in the past to prove that she was dishonorable or decietful. (She hadn't by the way). Luckily, we were able to recover from the snafu and everything worked out in the end.

Incident 2: We had all agreed on playing a D-hopping scenerio and we had landed in the midst of a dimension where Rome never fell. When we arrived, the two people we were looking for were being held captive by the supreme ruler of the world. The immortal "twin" of our mage. Now, time and things passed and we sent a delegation to the Emperor to see if what he was asking was true of if he was just luring us into a trap (he was, technically, but that was part of the story and plot). In any case, two of the PC's started to mouth of and disrespect this person (again, a person that had not really done anything to deserve the disrespect) and again, the GM had to call a halt to the game and as us what the hell we were doing. This also resulted in the game being put on hold because if the GM responded the way the NPC would've reacted, the two PC's would've been summarily executed.

We had a long talk about this and what it basically divulged down into was what we called "The PC Syndrome". It's where the PC's don't react as their characters' would react, but as THEY would react figuring they are beyond consequence and can do what they please. Some GM's react to this with an iron fist and summarily kill PC's left and right others, react by looking at it on the whole and going "How does this affect my game". Our GM, didn't want to just kill those two PC's at that point because it wouldn't further his story line and wouldn't have any meaning. He firmly believes that a PC's death should be a turning point and a milestone in the game and have meaning. A PC that is summarliy excuted doesn't really accomplish anything but pissing off the PC's inquestion.

Now, you might be asking yourself what this rambling has to do with the current topic. And to be honest with you, I'm not really sure, other then to show that Patriot isn't the only GM that has to deal with it and I think that it's a question that weighs on all GM's. And that question is this: If a PC is reacting as PC and not the character . . what do I do?

EDIT: Sorry, I just thought I might clarify the "PC Syndrome" a bit more. This is where a PC would go up to some high ranking NPC (or Villian) and mouth off to them or just show a lack of respect that the character should show but the PC's (because they're PC's) don't show it. This also includes any action that PC might have the character perfrom simply because the PC isn't in that situation. This doesn't apply to the playing of Disads because I know there're disads out that that PC take to portray this kind of attitude. It's when they don't have the disads but they still play like that that the problem begins to develop.

PS: I'm not excluding myself from this little category either because I'm just as guilt of doing it as the next person.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by ChuckB
Well...

1 From your description , the winery-staff seemed to be aware that their bosses were EuroStar and they didn't seem to concerned about it. They were working for terrorists , so they're not "innocents".

2 An UNTIL raid on the winery might've had just as much (or more ) collateral damage.

3 With Eurostar on the loose, why is the UN so concerned with Team Vanguard ? (unless there's some behind-the-scenes blackmail/mind-control stuff going on.)

4 If Stellar had a CVK , then he was probably excessive. 1. You don't know that. The winery-staff may have been intimidated by Eurostar's presence which is what Patriot just implied.

2. Maybe. But agents seldom have the power and versatility of a superteam.

3. Because a superhero killed people. The expectation is that a superhero doesn't do this and doesn't have to. It's a staple of the genre.

4. That's excessive for a 0 point reluctant to kill.

[Lord DeGarmo]

Hello there,
first, let me introduce myself. I was one of the original six Team Vanguard members. i have played on and off again with the team [depending on my work schedule] for the whole 12 yrs.
second, i know the player involved. i have run other games with this player as well.
the first issue with this situation is that the problem is the player. he is a min/max power monger who has played his character too long. he is a 750pt character surrounded by 350 to 400pt players. he refuses to retire this character. and the character is WAYYY OUT of concept.
next, the previous occurance of the teleporting trick was under a part-time gm and was over looked by the GM of the time.
the character has reached a power level where anything less than a custom designed villian can take him on in combat and the player knows it. the only way Patriot will ever get this character to retire is by creating a non-combat roleplaying situation he can't blast his way out of.
next is the issue out of game. the player is the kind of person who while in game is an out of control power machine, he's really a cool and nice guy in the down time. the kind of guy u don't want to leave the game but dont know how to tell him he's out of hand. and this has created a situation where ALL the other players want him to retire the character but know he will not do it and nobody has the gut to tell him to do it. they all think this is the GM's job.
the game is ment to be a four color heroic game and he abuses the game limitations. he continues to rationalize his actions claiming that the zero pt normals where not innocent since they work for the winery and therefore "minions of evil". which is like saying the girl who rang me up for my copy of starwars is a minion of george lucas.
as a fellow games master and pt time player, i have suggested to Patriot that he take every non-combat measure to punish stellar for his actions. this may lead to the disbanding team by presidental order if he refuse to surrender himself and will cause an interteam conflict as most have already stated that they will not back him on this.
On another note. i have already spoke with Patriot an given him my opinion. this game can be saved by retiring one character, creating new power level restrictions and enforcing character concept.
An Admission....
i recently played with this group again and was witness to the abuse of power that the charcter enacts on a regular basis. As a player he has become callous, only interested in ego gratification. and this has conflicted me as well, if the story line doesn't change the way the character behaves, i will have to make some out of game calls......

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Patriot

I dont require an EGO roll, I shouldnt need to , all my players are adults. When its worked for the better part of 12 years, I dont see a reason to change it

While it may have worked for 12 years, it seems to no longer be working. Specifically, IMO, you have a problem with the second step... the "and now the GM gets ticked off at the players" stage seems to have gone akilter and possibly be causing problems.

I still think you need a better resolution system than "and the GM gets ticked off" to handle your view and application of limitations. While you may be resistant to actually using the book rules, I suggest strongly you consider falling back to using the book rules rather than just proceeding straight to "the GM gets ticked off" steps.

In a game where eeryone is mature and adult and acts responsibly, these rules may not be needed. However, in this game, we have admitted from the Gm that he took it and got ticked off.

Thats not mature and adult handling on the GM's part. Until he gets his act together, consider using the rules as a means of handling this without the necessity of the ticked off stage.


Originally posted by Patriot

The players have dealt with a situation of this magnitude once before. Real time 12 years ago ( I am the only person from the original group) It dealt with a Viper attack on the team base (700+ viper agents) in the city of Chicago, a team member got killed but viper was stopped.

I am confused. You start saying they have dealt with this type of thing before and then seem to indicate that no one from this example but you are still involved.

Originally posted by Patriot

Do the Villians Parley, Rarely, but it has happened.
Eurostar didnt complain about the team , Leichenstein did.
As I posted before, This isnt this first time Stellar has done this, withloss of life..it has been a few years, but those things dont go away like parking tickets.

So this "happened in the past" BAD_PLAYER (tm) behavior happened several years ago? Thanks, that helps me put the players action in perspective.


Originally posted by Patriot

Eurostar wanted to speak with the team About the UN.That was the only real plot device that had to be dropped....some possibly intresting roleplaying.
The scenario, wasnot a "no-WIN" situation...as a matter of fact, It shouldnt have even been a combat situation

Unless , of course, the PC did not want to go along with the "truck with murderous terrorists" notion.

Originally posted by Patriot

Dealing with the instant timing issue...It wasnt, the next morning they got info about it, and you need to look a little closer to see it isnt one sided, yes some counries have signed a resolution, but some havent.

The Un moving overnight to action and resolution, even if not unanimous but still apparently enough to take action, is for all intents and purposes really quick if not instant.

The big question for timing is how much REAL WORLD PLAY TIME face-to-face did the players get between the event and the announcement of Un actions? Did they get a session to sit down and roleplay in chracter discussions and make plans? Did they get half a session?

Originally posted by Patriot

Some people seem to be pushing this point a whole lot...I did get tweaked, when he didnt play his disad at all.I will admit that, BUT, he has used the power that way before,and it did the same thing....so it shouldnt now, cause i got irritated a few minutes ago???

OK, in spite of hugh's claims and questions, I don't think anyone is saying the UN should not act or that the NPCs should not react. They are questioning the speed and seeming overarching one sidedness.

The question is "is this a ticked Gm rushing a series of amazingly ticked off NPCs and effectively blowing the situation up real quickly" or "is this part of a story and plan that is going to make the game fun and interesting"?

At least, it was for me. All things considered, I think i have my answer.

Originally posted by Patriot

Stellar was asked about his disads....but he continued


As a helpful suggestion, when a PC decides to not roleplay his disads, going to the mechanics as one means of enforcing the disad (or, indeed, any effort at all on the GMs part to actually enforce the disad) is FAR PREFERRABLE to not enforicng the disad at all and then getting ticked off over it at the player.

Had you chosen to require the ego roll, then pass or fail, you would likely not be here dragiing your player through the mud looking for support.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by tesuji



While it may have worked for 12 years, it seems to no longer be working. Specifically, IMO, you have a problem with the second step... the "and now the GM gets ticked off at the players" stage seems to have gone akilter and possibly be causing problems.

I still think you need a better resolution system than "and the GM gets ticked off" to handle your view and application of limitations. While you may be resistant to actually using the book rules, I suggest strongly you consider falling back to using the book rules rather than just proceeding straight to "the GM gets ticked off" steps.

In a game where eeryone is mature and adult and acts responsibly, these rules may not be needed. However, in this game, we have admitted from the Gm that he took it and got ticked off.

Thats not mature and adult handling on the GM's part. Until he gets his act together, consider using the rules as a means of handling this without the necessity of the ticked off stage.


I am confused. You start saying they have dealt with this type of thing before and then seem to indicate that no one from this example but you are still involved.

So this "happened in the past" BAD_PLAYER (tm) behavior happened several years ago? Thanks, that helps me put the players action in perspective.


Unless , of course, the PC did not want to go along with the "truck with murderous terrorists" notion.

The Un moving overnight to action and resolution, even if not unanimous but still apparently enough to take action, is for all intents and purposes really quick if not instant.

The big question for timing is how much REAL WORLD PLAY TIME face-to-face did the players get between the event and the announcement of Un actions? Did they get a session to sit down and roleplay in chracter discussions and make plans? Did they get half a session?

OK, in spite of hugh's claims and questions, I don't think anyone is saying the UN should not act or that the NPCs should not react. They are questioning the speed and seeming overarching one sidedness.

The question is "is this a ticked Gm rushing a series of amazingly ticked off NPCs and effectively blowing the situation up real quickly" or "is this part of a story and plan that is going to make the game fun and interesting"?

At least, it was for me. All things considered, I think i have my answer.


As a helpful suggestion, when a PC decides to not roleplay his disads, going to the mechanics as one means of enforcing the disad (or, indeed, any effort at all on the GMs part to actually enforce the disad) is FAR PREFERRABLE to not enforicng the disad at all and then getting ticked off over it at the player.

Had you chosen to require the ego roll, then pass or fail, you would likely not be here dragiing your player through the mud looking for support. [/B][/QUOTE] It looks to me like you established your position early on, keyed in on a few words, and aren't willing to let more information alter your opinion.

Mature adults in a game probably know what the genre conventions are. Mature adults have every right to get angry when somebody shows disrespect for everyone in the room. Mature adults take a deep breath and analyze what they are doing which is what Patriot's post was about. See, Tesuji, I wonder about your maturity. You have selected a stance seemingly based on a philosophy that there is only one method for running a game and are willing to call Patriot immature because you are going to disregard anything that contradicts your stance. Stop picking out what you want and stacking the deck. Look at the entirety of facts and you should see a GM who is having a problem with a player. The player is the problem. If the player did their job to begin with, the GM wouldn't be in a quandary.

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Lord DeGarmo

Hello there,
first, let me introduce myself. I was one of the original six Team Vanguard members. i have played on and off again with the team [depending on my work schedule] for the whole 12 yrs.
second, i know the player involved. i have run other games with this player as well.

snip the long pile on of the not here to defend himself player.

Issues such as "what characters are allowed" and "what are the acceptable point totals" and so forth even down to individual approval of character's powers are ALLL the responsibility of the GM. If having this 750 point character in with your 350s is a problem for the campaign, this is the GMs problem to deal with.

It is not the player's responsibility to realize that, when the GM says the character is OK, that the GM really meant "no, it isn't OK."

If the GM has decided to enforce limitations in game, rather than to let it slide and get ticked about it, you would likely not be in this severe a situation... if by nothing else than by having a non-ticked off Gm deciding NPC actions.

if the Gm recognized the problems this character at 750 was causing the other player, and stepped in rather than letting him play the 750, and set a campaign limit and enforced it, some of your complaints might have well been addressed.

NOTE: I do realize there are some bad players out there. Even though my basic opinion is that players are made, I know there are exceptions. i have had to kick people out of my games as disruptive and counter productive. One most notorious case was a player who only really saw the game as a competitoion with the other players and who would work actively to cause their plans to fail.

But, I cannot bring myself to just out of hat jump on the "what a bad player... hit him again harder" band wagon when all i have is the one sided perspectives brought by those who disagree with him to go on.

As i said earlier, no matter how much you want to bash this player, the evidince i have against him or about his actions is obviously biased. The evidence i have about the GM is straight from his own mouth... rrr fingers.

So I feel much more comfortable discussing the GMs issues than the player's good or ills.

If you really want the players actions to be scrutinized publically and ***fairly*** then i suggest you take him a copy of these posts and allow him a chance to speak his mind. Let him give us his view of the events and such.

Then, armed with both sides of the dispute, more of us might well be able to offer INFORMED opinions and make INFORMED suggestions regarding the players role and actions.

Short of that, the only INFORMED decisions and INFORMED suggestions we can really offer deal with the GMS actions.

[tesuji]

[/B][/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Agent X

It looks to me like you established your position early on, keyed in on a few words, and aren't willing to let more information alter your opinion.

Well, i have read and responded... the problem is that it seems you and i may have a different definition of what "more information" means.

No matter how many times and how many ways the one side continues to say "the player is the bad one" it is still one sided.

As i have stated at least three times now, we have the GM providing info on both the GMs actions and the players. We have the GM admitting he was ticked off at the player.

Armed with that information, i am very willing to comment on the GMs actions and his role, as we have his own observations to work with. I am not willing to just draw from his one sided observations that its the player's fault... and certainly not that it ia all the player's fault.

vefore i jump in to pile on the player, i would like to know his perspectives and observations.

Wanting to hear both sides before condeming one based on just the "other sides views", that doesn't seem all that immature or close minded to me.

YMMV

Originally posted by Agent X

Mature adults in a game probably know what the genre conventions are. Mature adults have every right to get angry when somebody shows disrespect for everyone in the room. Mature adults take a deep breath and analyze what they are doing which is what Patriot's post was about.

It doesn't seem that way to me. So far, the ticked off world seems to be more a reflection of a ticked off GM making decisions than a well thought out response. His initial posts certainly do not seem to be a case of "taking a breath" but rather seem closer to venting.

Originally posted by Agent X

See, Tesuji, I wonder about your maturity. You have selected a stance seemingly based on a philosophy that there is only one method for running a game and are willing to call Patriot immature because you are going to disregard anything that contradicts your stance.

Huh?

Where do you get one way to run a game from. If you were paying attention you would see that i have said that enforicng a lim, however you enforce it, woudl be superior to not enforcing it and then getting ticked off about it later.

I do not think expecting the Gm to not make "GM gets ticked off and reacts accordingly" a part of his game as being narrow minded as to how many ways there are to run a game. heck, i would even bet that most RPGs have sections on GMing which specifically mention maintaining even emotions and fairness and balance and the like.

But, if you consider "Gm gets ticked off and gets payback" as a "valid gaming choice" or "good GMing" then, yes indeed, I may well be narrow minded because i wont condone that.

Originally posted by Agent X

Stop picking out what you want and stacking the deck.

I am sorry, but this is laughable. When reading some long post about a series of events, each and everyone of us picks out the things which seem important. For example, i could decide that because his name starts with P, then Patriot must be the PROBLEM. However, being a reasonable sort, i do not let the alliteration... patriot problem... sway me unduly.


Originally posted by Agent X

Look at the entirety of facts and you should see a GM who is having a problem with a player. The player is the problem.

I find it amazing that so often on the net and BBS discussions people, seemingly reasonable people, are so instantly willing to condemn people in absentia.

before i am ready to leap to the conclusion that THE PROBLEM IS THE PLAYER I want more than just the ticked off hostile "other side" to jump in. I would like to give the guy who so far has no voice some semblance of a shadow of a doubt.

It is clear that Patriot and this other intermittent player think the PLAYER is the problem. Its obvious its all his fault... if only in their eyes.

But, what we do have is from the horse's mouth testimony of what the Gm did, what he is/was feeling and the obvious tome he brings in.

If I am more willing to focus on the self-admitted issues and try and deal with them and to not jump on the "i heard it on the net so it must be unvarnished truth" condemnation bandwagon of the player in absentia, and that makes me immature... then so be it.

and, btw, if you look back, you will find the maturity references started as a reason to why the GM did not need to enforce lims... he shouldn';t have to with mature gamers and the like...

now, color me dense, but the whole "getting ticked off at the player" thing does not to me speak volumes about the Gms maturity level... heck the whole "lets run to the net to air our laundry" things doesn't speak too highly of the maturity either.

My own personal, and perhaps in your eyes "immature", way of handling thse issue is to first handle them in game or involving the players, and to not bring these to the net for public hanging in absentia.`

Originally posted by Agent X

If the player did their job to begin with, the GM wouldn't be in a quandary.


Absoilutely... that is the GMS description of events.

But, enforcement of the lims is the Gms job. Its great when the player does this for you, but when all is said and done its the GM who agrees to everyone's cost and points and so the onus falls on him.

Now, whatever means he chooses to use to enforce the disad is fine, within some obvious extremes, but almost any reasonable method seems far superior to the " i wont enforce it at all but will simply get ticked off and throw a fit on the net later" method he CHOSE TO EMPLOY IN THIS CASE.

Would you not agree with that?

[tesuji]

Ok lets put this is a different perspective...

Questions to the Patriot...

1. Do you feel the NPC's reactions and severity of their opinions and speed with which events have transpired were at all influenced by your being ticked off at the player?

2. What do you see as faults or errors ON YOUR PART in how this was setup and handled so far? Did you do anything wrong? Have you erred? cIf so, how and more over, how will you do better in the future?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by ChuckB
2 An UNTIL raid on the winery might've had just as much (or more ) collateral damage.


Originally posted by Agent X
2. Maybe. But agents seldom have the power and versatility of a superteam.

It should also be remembered that UNTIL would have gone in with official UN sanction. I don't believe Team Vanguard had such legal authority. Their actions sonctitute vigilante justice. That's generally a "look the other way" situation in 4 colour, but only BECAUSE the supers respect, value and protect lives in the process. Stellar didn't follow that unwritten rule, did he?

[Hugh Neilson]

Probably the biggest issue here is whether the player is the problem. From Patriot's descriptions, he is. From the other player's descriptions, he is. From the comments of both, there is agreement in this regard from the other players. Based on the information at hand, I would agree with Patriot.

Would comments from the player be helpful? Sure. So would gaming with them for 10 years to know the ins and outs of character dynamics. But you aren't gonna get perfect information.

At the end of the day, the GM and other players are unhappy with the gaming style of one player. If the GM and players are the bad guys, the one player is better off leaving anyway. If the player is the problem, there's a "leave or mature" option here. But don't expect the whole game to change to suit one person - player or GM.

Patriot has also been accused of failing to rein the player in. Maybe that's true. Maybe it isn't. These issues get complicated. A character doesn't change from a well role played, in concept character overnight. A little change here, a little change there, and soon all these little changes add up to a completely different character.

If the world were "game only", just stop inviting the player. The world is not "game only", however, and out of game issues like personal friendships do influence the game.

Finally, to the "what about Eurostar people:

- do we think anyone knows wehre Eurostar is?
- do we think the UN may have passed resolutions censuring Eurostar previously?
- does anyone see any POSITIVE action the UN could take to deal with the Eurostar problem?

Hmmm...I'd say "probably not anyone who'll tell", "I expect so" and "hmmm...not any as easy as dealing with Stellar - we know where he is." As well, Stellar is likely the hot news story, and let's face it - politics always likes to follow the way the wind blows.

To me, whether Stellar was role played poorly or perfectly, the actions he has taken logically lead to consequences in the vein of those described by Patriot.

Someone mentioned the "PC SYndrome" earlier. I also see a lot of games where PC Syndrome means "no matter what he did, he's a PC and we can't hold it against him". Actions which would result in censure or open hostility if undertaken by an NPC are undertaken by a PC and that's all right - "he's one of our boys". How do we react to the "protect our own" mentality in the real world? Team Vanguard's association with Stellar means they will be looked at the same way he is. Their reactions may alter this, or support it - do they denounce Stellar, or do they back him up? But there will likely be some suspicion, for some time, that Team Vanguard is the problem, not just Stellar.

For a real world example, does anyone know the name "Enron"? How about "Arthur Anderson"? This worldwide accounting firm was brought down due to the Enron scandal. I know a university professor who researched that in detail. You know what? Arthur Anderson's head office was asked for a technical opinion on how Enron's books were done. They indicated that they were done inappropriately. The single person in charge of the Enron file chose to ignore that opinion. That one "team member's" actions brought down the whole firm. Why? Public outrage over Enron (and Arthur Anderson's) actions. Public perception that it was the organization, not the individual, at fault. And, frankly, the stupid decision to try to cover it up didn't help any!

Stellar's actions have made Team Vanguard look very bad. Lives were lost - public outrage seems reasonable. Now, does Team Vanguard try to sweep it under the carpet, or do they take action supporting the UN's resolutions? That would be a real tough call for the heroes, were it not for one thing: The outrage directed at Stellar is not unreasonable, based on the actions they watched him take.

[Theron]

Patriot. It's your game. If this guy is that far out of balance with the other PCs and it's creating a problem, then it's your responsibility to deal with it, and not in an in-game context.

I'm not going to say, "Bad Player" or "Bad GM" or anything of the sort. Only, that ultimately, it's the Screen Monkey who decides what is and is not appropriate for the campaign and makes it stick. I've been there, and it sucks, but it beats shredding an entire campaign over one player.

[zornwil]

Patriot, I may have missed it, but did you discuss this with the player, and if so what was his comment/feeling?

From yours and one of your players' comments, it sounds like the player (as opposed to the PC) has become pretty crusty on gaming, assuming (and this is a leap) that he used to play reasonably well with 4 color. I'd address it head on, but also address it PC-character-on and suggest to him he play an "end game" with the PC. The PC is getting embittered and/or arrogant, and is way more powerful than the others. It's a good opportunity to let him play it out to a conclusion - positive or negative.

If he can't see that and doesn't see an issue with his playing...well, it's time to drop him from the group.

I do think that as a GM you should feel free to place limits in-game, and Tesuji's point regarding having an EGO roll, as it is an established game mechanic and absolves you of being arbitrary in forcing a player to take a particular path, is a good one. Of course hind-sight is 20/20. I wouldn't have done that, either, in the event without having read of this. Now I might think differently.

Of course half of my players might have done the same thing, just more deviously or more circuitously, but we're not playing a 4-color game.

[zornwil]

Whoops, just noticed I double-posted, I must have hit back and then not realized and hit enter, sorry! Just editing to erase the extra post.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil
I do think that as a GM you should feel free to place limits in-game, and Tesuji's point regarding having an EGO roll, as it is an established game mechanic and absolves you of being arbitrary in forcing a player to take a particular path, is a good one. Of course hind-sight is 20/20. I wouldn't have done that, either, in the event without having read of this. Now I might think differently.

Of course half of my players might have done the same thing, just more deviously or more circuitously, but we're not playing a 4-color game.

Good call on the "hindsight" issue. As a GM, you have very limited time to make the call. A few days of posts by others all over the world with time to think it through is very different from a game call made in 15 seconds to keep the game moving.

Then you get lots of time to agonize over it, wonder whether you made the right call and ask yourself what ramifications the results should have on the campaign.

There seems to be excessive focus on the Ego roll, however. If the character made the roll and proceeded, or never had the limitation in the first place, UN sanctions and similar results would seem no more or less out of place to me. That's why "casual killer" is also a disadvantage - this tends to attract attention in unwanted forms.

[ChuckB]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ChuckB
Well...

1 From your description , the winery-staff seemed to be aware that their bosses were EuroStar and they didn't seem to concerned about it. They were working for terrorists , so they're not "innocents".

2 An UNTIL raid on the winery might've had just as much (or more ) collateral damage.

3 With Eurostar on the loose, why is the UN so concerned with Team Vanguard ? (unless there's some behind-the-scenes blackmail/mind-control stuff going on.)

4 If Stellar had a CVK , then he was probably excessive.


Originally posted by Agent X
1. You don't know that. The winery-staff may have been intimidated by Eurostar's presence which is what Patriot just implied.

2. Maybe. But agents seldom have the power and versatility of a superteam.

3. Because a superhero killed people. The expectation is that a superhero doesn't do this and doesn't have to. It's a staple of the genre.

4. That's excessive for a 0 point reluctant to kill.


1 Dude , I'm only going with what Patriot told us and based on that , it sounds like the staff was ok working with super-terrorists.

2 Sure , I'll give you that.

3 For the most part yes , but that element of the genre does tend to fluctuate , especially in the early golden-age of comics and from the 80's til now and if your game is at all based on modern day society and the effects of terrorism, Vanguard would probably be backed by the US and be at odds with the UN.

4 Many (but probably not the majority) would probably agree , but I don't entirely buy that.

The other circumstances ( rescuing a captured team member

[Magmarock]

I know exactly how Patriot feels, especially when a Player(s) get out of line and reacts in a way the PC wouldn't. I have been tempted to call a halt to entire campaigns because of this. You see, it ruins the game for me, and when I am running a game and I am not having fun, then the Players will certainly not have any fun either.

I had a similar experience happen to me last session, in running the "Let's Go to the Maul" scenario from Battlegrounds. One of my Players had a serious "hard on" for taking out Foxbat, even though his PC had never encountered Foxbat, had never heard of him, and failed to make Foxbat's Rep roll. That said, based on the Foxbat's pre-written soliloquy of "I am winged doom!" And mention of a "Master Plan", this one Player proceeded to blast Foxbat out of the belltower and then continued to pound on the villain, with full intention of stealing Foxbat's boots and ping-pong gun, until Foxbat was nearly killed. The only thing that saved Foxbat from dying was the suggested optional ablative armor and that the police showed up. The "hero" still took the gun. Also, while the hero was playing patty-cake with Foxbat, the rest of the team had to deal with the real villains and their fight suffered without his back up.

How does one deal with a Player like that? I don't know. I do know that I have taken more than one "break" from being GM just because of the Players' general disrespect for my game (not just this guy, but from onthers' too). They always ask me to run the game again, eventually... and I, like the sucker I am, will comply until I get "burnt out" again.

I think that a lot of Players will let their own personal dislikes for a certain villain taint the way their PC reacts. Maybe part of it is frustration with how the game is progressing, although in the example above, the game had just started. Anyway, if there is a way to deal with this roleplaying faux pas, without pissing off my gaming buddies, I would like to know what it is!

Mags

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Magmarock
And mention of a "Master Plan", this one Player proceeded to blast Foxbat out of the belltower and then continued to pound on the villain, with full intention of stealing Foxbat's boots and ping-pong gun, until Foxbat was nearly killed. The only thing that saved Foxbat from dying was the suggested optional ablative armor and that the police showed up. The "hero" still took the gun. Also, while the hero was playing patty-cake with Foxbat, the rest of the team had to deal with the real villains and their fight suffered without his back up.

Be a shame when the police show up to arrest him for assualt and theft, won't it? May get off the assault charge - Foxbat was endangering civilians, at least arguably. But he still stole private property, and that's still theft. Oh, the judge probably lets him off with a slap in the wrists, but the media will have a field day.

You have "Reputation: Kleptomaniac" and "Hunted: FoxBat" for free - way to go! Maybe FoxBat should spend his XP on a new slot that targets our "Hero" in a vulnerable location (whatever defenses he lacks, if there's no Susc/Vuln to take a shot at).


Originally posted by Magmarock
How does one deal with a Player like that? I don't know. I do know that I have taken more than one "break" from being GM just because of the Players' general disrespect for my game (not just this guy, but from onthers' too). They always ask me to run the game again, eventually... and I, like the sucker I am, will comply until I get "burnt out" again.

No answers there. I suppose if enough of the potential GM's sit down and say "ground rules or no game", that might bring some peer pressure to bear.

[Phraze]

Without joining either the "pile on the player" or "pile on the GM" camp, I'd like to bring up one thing that no one else has mentioned and that might bear some clarification:

Did the player really kill the NPC's in question or did the GM?

The scenario as I read it:
Eurostar captures team member (as a means of getting Team Vanguard into a parley session? Kind of silly to mask the character's presence with Mentalla's powers if it was all just a ruse to get the players to the table)
Team shows up to rescue said team member
Fiacho invites team to dinner
Stellar refuses
Fiacho threatens innocent and orders team to leave (a rather odd and extreme reaction - he's just invited them to stay, now he's saying "get out or the cook gets it" - must have been some mighty strong words from Stellar)
Stellar mouths off and then does as Fiacho said, using an Area Effect T-port or something

What hasn't been addressed is, did Stellar's player mean to collapse the building when he left, or was that something the GM did in a fit of pique over having his scenario thwarted? Because this is all too common (and I've been guilty of it myself). Player does something the GM doesn't agree with, and suddenly, the world blows up in his face.

Player: "We're wasting our time with this villain. I'm using my powers to get us all out of here now."

GM: "You teleport out, and a chunk of the floor comes out with you. The building collapses, killing everyone inside. You're now a murderer. Have a nice day."

IN this case, although the PC's action is nominally responsible, it's really a GM fiat that killed the civs. Which would mean that this whole UN resolution, trial-of-a-hero thing is not due to a hero acting unheroically, but a GM who's upset that his scenario got derailed.

Not to pile on Patriot. Take this as a learning experience.
If your intention was to get the players to learn something vital about a UN conspiracy or something, kidnapping a PC was probably not the best way to do it. The scenario screamed "Trap," and I know few players who would be inclined to negotiate peacefully with a terrorist who had just kidnapped one of their teammates, not even for a free meal.

On the other hand, if the player said, "I'm teleporting us out and collapsing the building around Fiacho's ears, killing as many innocents as I can in the process," that's a whole other kettle of fish of a different color...

[DoctorItron]

Originally posted by Phraze
SNIP
GM: "You teleport out, and a chunk of the floor comes out with you. The building collapses, killing everyone inside. You're now a murderer. Have a nice day."

IN this case, although the PC's action is nominally responsible, it's really a GM fiat that killed the civs. Which would mean that this whole UN resolution, trial-of-a-hero thing is not due to a hero acting unheroically, but a GM who's upset that his scenario got derailed.
SNIP

I think Patriot said that Vanguard did the teleport-with-the-floor thing on prior occasions and had similar problems, so it doesn't sound like GM fiat. Sounds like some sort of Side Effect limitation on the power.

Vanguard's player either:

1) Forgot about his limitation. If that's true, then retconning is legitimate, as the character could have remembered that his teleport causes collateral damage, even if the player forgot.

2) Teleported despite a GM warning on the risks. I think Patriot said he reminded the player about Vanguard's Code v. Killing or Protect Innocents disad *before* the teleport.

3) Got screwed by the GM. This is only the case if Vanguard's teleport has no relevant limitations on it.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by DoctorItron
I think Patriot said that Vanguard did the teleport-with-the-floor thing on prior occasions and had similar problems, so it doesn't sound like GM fiat. Sounds like some sort of Side Effect limitation on the power.

Vanguard's player either:

1) Forgot about his limitation. If that's true, then retconning is legitimate, as the character could have remembered that his teleport causes collateral damage, even if the player forgot.

2) Teleported despite a GM warning on the risks. I think Patriot said he reminded the player about Vanguard's Code v. Killing or Protect Innocents disad *before* the teleport.

3) Got screwed by the GM. This is only the case if Vanguard's teleport has no relevant limitations on it. Option 2 is the only viable one based on what Patriot has said. One of the things getting to me on this thread is this need for people to say this is only Patriot's side of the story as if we are holding court. Patriot didn't give us someone's name. We don't know this person. Some are acting almost as if Patriot is slandering someone and this is just silly.

Patriot posted a concern. Patriot has, as far as I know, never demonstrated a reason for someone to doubt his accounts of his own game. To me, that means you give the guy the presumption that he is telling the truth. I am insulted that people on these boards would just assume that Patriot is not giving us an accurate account. That is way too cynical.

This goes double for the sad attempts at psychoanalysis.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by tesuji



Well, i have read and responded... the problem is that it seems you and i may have a different definition of what "more information" means.

No matter how many times and how many ways the one side continues to say "the player is the bad one" it is still one sided.

As i have stated at least three times now, we have the GM providing info on both the GMs actions and the players. We have the GM admitting he was ticked off at the player.

Armed with that information, i am very willing to comment on the GMs actions and his role, as we have his own observations to work with. I am not willing to just draw from his one sided observations that its the player's fault... and certainly not that it ia all the player's fault.

vefore i jump in to pile on the player, i would like to know his perspectives and observations.

Wanting to hear both sides before condeming one based on just the "other sides views", that doesn't seem all that immature or close minded to me.

YMMV

It doesn't seem that way to me. So far, the ticked off world seems to be more a reflection of a ticked off GM making decisions than a well thought out response. His initial posts certainly do not seem to be a case of "taking a breath" but rather seem closer to venting.

Huh?

Where do you get one way to run a game from. If you were paying attention you would see that i have said that enforicng a lim, however you enforce it, woudl be superior to not enforcing it and then getting ticked off about it later.

I do not think expecting the Gm to not make "GM gets ticked off and reacts accordingly" a part of his game as being narrow minded as to how many ways there are to run a game. heck, i would even bet that most RPGs have sections on GMing which specifically mention maintaining even emotions and fairness and balance and the like.

But, if you consider "Gm gets ticked off and gets payback" as a "valid gaming choice" or "good GMing" then, yes indeed, I may well be narrow minded because i wont condone that.

I am sorry, but this is laughable. When reading some long post about a series of events, each and everyone of us picks out the things which seem important. For example, i could decide that because his name starts with P, then Patriot must be the PROBLEM. However, being a reasonable sort, i do not let the alliteration... patriot problem... sway me unduly.


I find it amazing that so often on the net and BBS discussions people, seemingly reasonable people, are so instantly willing to condemn people in absentia.

before i am ready to leap to the conclusion that THE PROBLEM IS THE PLAYER I want more than just the ticked off hostile "other side" to jump in. I would like to give the guy who so far has no voice some semblance of a shadow of a doubt.

It is clear that Patriot and this other intermittent player think the PLAYER is the problem. Its obvious its all his fault... if only in their eyes.

But, what we do have is from the horse's mouth testimony of what the Gm did, what he is/was feeling and the obvious tome he brings in.

If I am more willing to focus on the self-admitted issues and try and deal with them and to not jump on the "i heard it on the net so it must be unvarnished truth" condemnation bandwagon of the player in absentia, and that makes me immature... then so be it.

and, btw, if you look back, you will find the maturity references started as a reason to why the GM did not need to enforce lims... he shouldn';t have to with mature gamers and the like...

now, color me dense, but the whole "getting ticked off at the player" thing does not to me speak volumes about the Gms maturity level... heck the whole "lets run to the net to air our laundry" things doesn't speak too highly of the maturity either.

My own personal, and perhaps in your eyes "immature", way of handling thse issue is to first handle them in game or involving the players, and to not bring these to the net for public hanging in absentia.`


Absoilutely... that is the GMS description of events.

But, enforcement of the lims is the Gms job. Its great when the player does this for you, but when all is said and done its the GM who agrees to everyone's cost and points and so the onus falls on him.

Now, whatever means he chooses to use to enforce the disad is fine, within some obvious extremes, but almost any reasonable method seems far superior to the " i wont enforce it at all but will simply get ticked off and throw a fit on the net later" method he CHOSE TO EMPLOY IN THIS CASE.

Would you not agree with that? [/B][/QUOTE] The problem with your thinking is the condescending assumptions you make about Patriot. This thought process you are illustrating is unwarranted. I don't understand why you feel the need to assume that Patriot is distorting the issues. That is what I find rude and immature about your post.

[Trebuchet]

I didn't see Patriot's original post as unbalanced in it's presentation at all. He admitted up front he was PO'd at Stellar's player; which to me indicates he was mature enough to recognize his own possible bias. The impression I had was that he was both venting a bit (perfectly understandable) and asking for advice on how to deal with the situation.

This situation is clearly been building for some time, and I recognize Patriot's reluctance to come down on his player like a ton of bricks for what it most probably is: An honest reluctance to end a campaign after 12 years of work. I'd hesitate in the same case myself. But I have ended a campaign when I felt it went too far off track.

There are really only a few ways this can be dealt with:

1) Expel the player. Not really a good way, especially in light of the fact that Stellar's player seems to be an OK guy when he's not playing Stellar. (Although I'm a bit suspicious of how "OK" a guy can be when he's so willing to run roughshod over his friends. I wouldn't play in such a game.)

2) End the campaign. Start everybody from scratch at 350 (or whatever) points in a new campaign. It could even be set in the same game universe, except the player's old characters become NPCs. (Two of my old PCs are NPCs in my current campaign; as is one of Mentor's.)

3) Ask the offending player to start a new character. This type of behavior is fairly typical of players who are bored. I think it's likely that Stellar's player is getting tired of running him, but can't bring himself to make the switch to a new character. A lot of ego can get tied up in long-term characters. (Trust me, I speak from experience!)

4) Have a mass radiation accident and give everybody on Team Vanguard 750 points and change the campaign to a high-powered interstellar one a la Legion of Superheros. Then everybody is equal.

Ultimately, the decision is Patriot's. I personally would prefer option #3 as the least likely to generate hurt feelings amongst all concerned.

And let's lighten up a bit, guys. This is still just a game, after all. :)

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I didn't see Patriot's original post as unbalanced in it's presentation at all. He admitted up front he was PO'd at Stellar's player; which to me indicates he was mature enough to recognize his own possible bias. The impression I had was that he was both venting a bit (perfectly understandable) and asking for advice on how to deal with the situation.

This situation is clearly been building for some time, and I recognize Patriot's reluctance to come down on his player like a ton of bricks for what it most probably is: An honest reluctance to end a campaign after 12 years of work. I'd hesitate in the same case myself. But I have ended a campaign when I felt it went too far off track.

There are really only a few ways this can be dealt with:

1) Expel the player. Not really a good way, especially in light of the fact that Stellar's player seems to be an OK guy when he's not playing Stellar. (Although I'm a bit suspicious of how "OK" a guy can be when he's so willing to run roughshod over his friends. I wouldn't play in such a game.)

2) End the campaign. Start everybody from scratch at 350 (or whatever) points in a new campaign. It could even be set in the same game universe, except the player's old characters become NPCs. (Two of my old PCs are NPCs in my current campaign; as is one of Mentor's.)

3) Ask the offending player to start a new character. This type of behavior is fairly typical of players who are bored. I think it's likely that Stellar's player is getting tired of running him, but can't bring himself to make the switch to a new character. A lot of ego can get tied up in long-term characters. (Trust me, I speak from experience!)

4) Have a mass radiation accident and give everybody on Team Vanguard 750 points and change the campaign to a high-powered interstellar one a la Legion of Superheros. Then everybody is equal.

Ultimately, the decision is Patriot's. I personally would prefer option #3 as the least likely to generate hurt feelings amongst all concerned.

And let's lighten up a bit, guys. This is still just a game, after all. :) Come on, Treb. If you got here first you would have been all over Regnak.;)

[KA.]

Okay, I am going to chime back in here, for a couple of reasons.

1) Patriot,
I think I owe you an apology. I must admit that when I read your first post I suspected that you might have been having a "GM tantrum" and blowing up your campaign to spite one player. I think part of that feeling was caused by your lack of responses after your initial post, but you already explained that you were working, so no problem there. I am sure that you didn't expect this to turn into such a conflagration when you posted.

2) tesuji,
when I started posting to this thread, I was more or less on your "side", even though I had reservations, since we did not have enough background.
Since then, your posts have gotten more and more defensive, even somewhat insulting.

There is nothing wrong with trying to bend over backwards to make sure that a fellow Hero gamer is not being misrepresented when he is not here to "defend himself".

I am sure that if someone came on this board to slam either me, or any of the posters you have been arguing with, that the victim would be glad to have such an enthusiastic advocate defending their position in their absence.

But, I think that you have gone from defending a fellow player, that only two people on the board seem to know, to defending your position, even in the face of more information that seems to contradict what both you and I were saying (that the GM blew up and was punishing the player).

It is hardly my place to tell you what your position should be, but I must, regretfully, resign from supporting it.
I think that Patriot has given enough background to support his decisions.

3) Patriot,
It still appears that you have a problem on your hands. You have a player that you like, with a character that you do not.
And you have an overpowered character in your campaign that is throwing off the balance, as well as seeming to go a bit rogue.

My solution: Talk to the player, in private, about starting a new character.
But have the current one go out in a tragic blaze of glory.

You could easily have a story arc where Eurostar has developed some type of nuclear super weapon, capable of spreading some toxic substance over all of the earth (except Europe, of course).
Stellar made his earlier bad choice based on an "intuition" that something really dangerous was about to happen and that he had to get his team out of there.

You can have a trial, put Stellar on probation, etc.

Then, have a session where Stellar finds clues as to what Eurostar is trying to do, but is unable to convince anyone, due to his probationary status.

Finally, he takes the team, against their will if necessary, to the base where Eurostar's device (some type of large bomb) is housed, but the countdown has already begun.

The device is so large and massive that only Stellar has the power to move it a safe distance into the upper atmosphere.

Pushing himself to the limits, he teleports the device, and himself, as the timer reaches zero, sacrificing himself for the team, and the world, that refused to believe in him.

There won't be a dry eye in the house.

Stellar will be gone.
His name will be cleared.
The campaign world will know what Eurostar was up to.
(You can even have a "government liason officer" monitoring the group after the probation, so that there will be a witness to Stellar's final act.)
The nice player that you like can create a character that is more in line with your campaign.

KA

[badger3k]

Originally posted by KA.
3) Patriot,
It still appears that you have a problem on your hands. You have a player that you like, with a character that you do not.
And you have an overpowered character in your campaign that is throwing off the balance, as well as seeming to go a bit rogue.

My solution: Talk to the player, in private, about starting a new character.
But have the current one go out in a tragic blaze of glory.

You could easily have a story arc where Eurostar has developed some type of nuclear super weapon, capable of spreading some toxic substance over all of the earth (except Europe, of course).
Stellar made his earlier bad choice based on an "intuition" that something really dangerous was about to happen and that he had to get his team out of there.

You can have a trial, put Stellar on probation, etc.

Then, have a session where Stellar finds clues as to what Eurostar is trying to do, but is unable to convince anyone, due to his probationary status.

Finally, he takes the team, against their will if necessary, to the base where Eurostar's device (some type of large bomb) is housed, but the countdown has already begun.

The device is so large and massive that only Stellar has the power to move it a safe distance into the upper atmosphere.

Pushing himself to the limits, he teleports the device, and himself, as the timer reaches zero, sacrificing himself for the team, and the world, that refused to believe in him.

There won't be a dry eye in the house.

Stellar will be gone.
His name will be cleared.
The campaign world will know what Eurostar was up to.
(You can even have a "government liason officer" monitoring the group after the probation, so that there will be a witness to Stellar's final act.)
The nice player that you like can create a character that is more in line with your campaign.

KA

Artfully done in grand 4-color tradition. But if it doesn't work then it doesn't - I think Patriot needs to know that some things have to be done for the good of the group. If this player, or his character, is the problem, and makes the game no fun for the other players, then (no matter who is at fault) he is the one who has to correct the problem. Talk to the player and see if you can get him to change characters or whatever (many people had suggestions, I won't repeat them here). Then make sure that the situation doesn't come up. My players can tell you that I am easygoing during play - I am fairly lenient in what I let the players do, as long as it is within the rules and the character concept. But there are ground rules that I have that there is no compromise on. Every GM has these. Its our responsibility to make sure the other players have fun, which includes policing members if need be.

I'll end it here, cause I could make it long.

Good luck Patriot. Hope things work out.

[hybris]

Originally posted by ChuckB
I'm only going with what Patriot told us and based on that , it sounds like the staff was ok working with super-terrorists.
Super-terrorists who have a rather good mentalist (i.e., Mentalla) among their number, though. :)

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Agent X
Come on, Treb. If you got here first you would have been all over Regnak.;) Possibly. You've been the voice of reason here, but that doesn't mean nobody else hasn't had some good points as well. In any case we're not the GMs here; this is still ultimately Patriot's call to make.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Good call on the "hindsight" issue. As a GM, you have very limited time to make the call. A few days of posts by others all over the world with time to think it through is very different from a game call made in 15 seconds to keep the game moving.

Then you get lots of time to agonize over it, wonder whether you made the right call and ask yourself what ramifications the results should have on the campaign.

There seems to be excessive focus on the Ego roll, however. If the character made the roll and proceeded, or never had the limitation in the first place, UN sanctions and similar results would seem no more or less out of place to me. That's why "casual killer" is also a disadvantage - this tends to attract attention in unwanted forms.

Ah, see, now I didn't say THAT!

Just because the player made the roll or never had the limitation, he woudl still suffer the same consequences - after all, it's a 4-color game.

[Phraze]

Originally posted by Agent X
Option 2 is the only viable one based on what Patriot has said. One of the things getting to me on this thread is this need for people to say this is only Patriot's side of the story as if we are holding court. Patriot didn't give us someone's name. We don't know this person. Some are acting almost as if Patriot is slandering someone and this is just silly.

Patriot posted a concern. Patriot has, as far as I know, never demonstrated a reason for someone to doubt his accounts of his own game. To me, that means you give the guy the presumption that he is telling the truth. I am insulted that people on these boards would just assume that Patriot is not giving us an accurate account. That is way too cynical.

This goes double for the sad attempts at psychoanalysis.

Since this was posted in response to a response to my post, I figure I'm at least one of the sad psychoanalyzers in question. I don't think I was attempting to psychoanalyze, but merely trying to relate the story to my own experience. I don't think my analysis of the game scenario in question was unreasonable.
1) According to both Patriot and the other player who posted, the building collapse side effect happened maybe only once(?) with a part-time GM several years ago. It's apparently not built-in to the power.
2) The team didn't know about the building collapse until they saw it on the news the next day, so it doesn't seem as if the collapse was intentional or expected.
3) The player was asked about his limitation as far as "Protects Innocents," but there was also a completely different threat to innocents going on at the time (Fiacho threatening the cook), so there may have been some confusion.
I think my original point (and I apologize if it sounded condescending) was that the entire building collapse/UN trial scenario sounded like an outgrowth of a GM-imposed Unintended Consequence in response to a player's attitude. The Unintended Consequence is like the Phillips screwdriver of the GM's repertoire, but it can backfire if the player feels as if he's being singled out or railroaded, as it seems Stellar's player does. Patriot says Stellar's player insists it's all a set-up by Eurostar, and he may be justified in thinking so. After all, the initial set-up felt like some kind of trap, Fiacho was already threatening to kill at least one member of the winery's staff, and none of the team members actually saw the building collapse. For all Stellar knows, Fiacho collapsed the building after their departure to get Stellar in trouble, knowing that something similar had happened years before (maybe a possible retcon if Patriot feels charitable).
I have never been in a campaign that ran 12 years, but I have run a campaign which the players purposely blew up because they felt railroaded by a particular scenario, and I had to play out the consequences. I agree with Trebuchet's list of options for the long-term campaign. The UN trial storyline has a lot of dramatic possibilities, but it also has the potential to wreck a long-running campaign if it's not handled carefully.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Phraze
Patriot says Stellar's player insists it's all a set-up by Eurostar, and he may be justified in thinking so. After all, the initial set-up felt like some kind of trap, Fiacho was already threatening to kill at least one member of the winery's staff, and none of the team members actually saw the building collapse.Here's my problem with the actions of Stellar (and to a lesser extent Team Vanguard): They went into a building where Europe's most notorious superterrorists were gathered; a group of villains infamous for their callous killing of innocents. Fiacho grabbed a kitchen worker and threatened to kill him; that hardly sounds like the staff was working for Eurostar (at least voluntarily). So where was the effort to save the winery employees, especially the cook being held? Stellar might even be right that it was all a setup by Eurostar, but that doesn't eliminate the need to save the normals. Even if the winery workers were voluntarily helping Eurostar (highly questionable, especially as Eurostar has one of Earth's most powerful mentalists as a member.), some effort should have to remove the normals to safety. It's not like they were armed goons; and in the lack of solid evidence they were voluntarily serving Eurostar they should have been given the benefit of the doubt. I'm honestly appalled that Team Vanguard didn't insist on going back, with or without Stellar.

It was like watching the Rodney King beating. Bad enough you see four LAPD cops beating the crap out of a guy; but just as bad was realizing that another dozen law enforcement officers were watching them do it without intervening. :mad:

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Phraze
I have never been in a campaign that ran 12 years, but I have run a campaign which the players purposely blew up because they felt railroaded by a particular scenario, and I had to play out the consequences. I agree with Trebuchet's list of options for the long-term campaign. The UN trial storyline has a lot of dramatic possibilities, but it also has the potential to wreck a long-running campaign if it's not handled carefully. And this makes me wonder why, when given a vacuum of information, that we would assume Patriot purposely antagonizes his players. Patriot has been running the same campaign for 12 years! The actions of the character Stellar are wrong on so many levels and I actually did get the impression that he knew his power worked that way.

[DoctorItron]

Originally posted by Agent X
Option 2 is the only viable one based on what Patriot has said. One of the things getting to me on this thread is this need for people to say this is only Patriot's side of the story as if we are holding court. Patriot didn't give us someone's name. We don't know this person. Some are acting almost as if Patriot is slandering someone and this is just silly.

Patriot posted a concern. Patriot has, as far as I know, never demonstrated a reason for someone to doubt his accounts of his own game. To me, that means you give the guy the presumption that he is telling the truth. I am insulted that people on these boards would just assume that Patriot is not giving us an accurate account. That is way too cynical.

This goes double for the sad attempts at psychoanalysis.

Agent X, I'm with you. My post probably wasn't clear enough: I agree that Option 2 seems like the most accurate option.

I presented the other options as possibilities only because I didn't have time to reread all the prior posts - some of the posters have been too venomous for me to waste time rereading all of the things written here.

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, I'll toss in my .02 since Patriot asked for opinions. I didn't read all of the posts b/c things started getting pretty flamey partway through, so forgive me if I repeat what's already been said.

Here's what I'd do:

Ask the player to leave the group.

Here's why:

Based on the original post, the Stellar player was told that he might be harming innocents. He rationalized his character's action with a thin excuse. His character would have had no reason to leap to the conclusion that the winery workers were voluntarily working for Eurostar (team has uber-telepath on it, the normals weren't armed goons, and even w/out mind control, people can be controlled by threatening loved ones, the help may not evenr ealized who the hell Eurostar is depending on how public their activity has been, etc., too many possibilities for an experienced super to assume anything), so the excuse doesn't fly. The GM as much as told him not to do it, but he did. So, screw him. Uninvite him to the next session, and NPC Stellar and play out hunting him down like a mad dog and either jailing him or having Eurostar take revenge on him.

Bottom line, the guy wanted to toss in a monkey wrench. He was playing selfishly and immaturely, and the reason doesn't really matter.

What I would have done:

Told the player "Stelllar decides not to do that, because he realizes he may kill some of the winery staff." If the player became a problem at that point, I'd wrap for the night, talk to him, and then boot him if the underlying problem hadn't been resolved.

But this isn't "What should I have done?" Patriot made a judgement call to keep things moving, so no fair second-guessing him, not being there. That's his job as GM. Since the damage has been done, the only options are to either let the player in question take the game in a new direction, or boot him and maintain the GM's direction.

[Cybernaut]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Well, I'll toss in my .02 since Patriot asked for opinions.
<SNIP>
What I would have done:

Told the player "Stelllar decides not to do that, because he realizes he may kill some of the winery staff." If the player became a problem at that point, I'd wrap for the night, talk to him, and then boot him if the underlying problem hadn't been resolved.

But this isn't "What should I have done?" Patriot made a judgement call to keep things moving, so no fair second-guessing him, not being there. That's his job as GM. Since the damage has been done, the only options are to either let the player in question take the game in a new direction, or boot him and maintain the GM's direction.
I agree. Talk to the player in private, lay everything out for him in no uncertain terms, and if he's not contrite tell him to take a hike.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Told the player "Stelllar decides not to do that, because he realizes he may kill some of the winery staff." Is it wrong that, all the way through this thread, I keep on reading that as 'whinery staff?' I just can't help it. :) My mind keeps inserting the extra 'h.'

[William Bushway]

If you can convince the player to retire the character, or the player leaves the group, sounds like the character is ripe for a "Parralax Turn" - Hero's power sets him so far above the masses that he begins to lose touch. This can be accompanied by the "Authority Complex," where the hero believes so firmly in his own infallibility that he grows tired and resentful of the "stupid" things that normal people do to each other that he feels he has to step in and save them from themselves. Definite villain possibilities, there.

[J4y]

It was like watching the Rodney King beating. Bad enough you see four LAPD cops beating the crap out of a guy; but just as bad was realizing that another dozen law enforcement officers were watching them do it without intervening.

That really has nothing to do with this. This is Eurostar. It's more like the cops watching someone walk around randomly shooting people to death because he has a grenade in his hand that would kill the hostage he has on a leash. This is why hostages just shouldn't be used unless they're the focus of the story, the fact is that they're simply collatoral damage, it is impossible to superheroically deal with random hostages. If negotiating with murdering supervillians who took hostages was even an option then the supervillians would simply rig up a system where they ALWAYS have some hostages scattered at various bases or what have you that will die if they're intefered with and the game is hosed. The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.

C'mon, this is Eurostar, each member has the power of a modern army. You don't let an army or a terrorist organization wander around your country doing whatever it pleases because they threaten to take a civilian hostage! LOL!

As for teleporting out and taking the floor, well *I* certainly wouldn't expect anyone to die from that. If he was trying to kill civilians I imagine a 750pt character could have found a more effective method.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by J4y
It was like watching the Rodney King beating. Bad enough you see four LAPD cops beating the crap out of a guy; but just as bad was realizing that another dozen law enforcement officers were watching them do it without intervening.

That really has nothing to do with this. This is Eurostar. It's more like the cops watching someone walk around randomly shooting people to death because he has a grenade in his hand that would kill the hostage he has on a leash. This is why hostages just shouldn't be used unless they're the focus of the story, the fact is that they're simply collatoral damage, it is impossible to superheroically deal with random hostages. If negotiating with murdering supervillians who took hostages was even an option then the supervillians would simply rig up a system where they ALWAYS have some hostages scattered at various bases or what have you that will die if they're intefered with and the game is hosed. The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.

C'mon, this is Eurostar, each member has the power of a modern army. You don't let an army or a terrorist organization wander around your country doing whatever it pleases because they threaten to take a civilian hostage! LOL!

As for teleporting out and taking the floor, well *I* certainly wouldn't expect anyone to die from that. If he was trying to kill civilians I imagine a 750pt character could have found a more effective method. Why wouldn't you expect norms to be harmed if the floor/support structures in a multilevel building were suddenly gone?

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y
The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.I have to assume you're joking here; because if you're not then you are very, very, scary! :eek:

*Backs away slowly*

[Lupus]

Originally posted by J4y
That really has nothing to do with this. This is Eurostar. It's more like the cops watching someone walk around randomly shooting people to death because he has a grenade in his hand that would kill the hostage he has on a leash. This is why hostages just shouldn't be used unless they're the focus of the story, the fact is that they're simply collatoral damage, it is impossible to superheroically deal with random hostages. If negotiating with murdering supervillians who took hostages was even an option then the supervillians would simply rig up a system where they ALWAYS have some hostages scattered at various bases or what have you that will die if they're intefered with and the game is hosed. The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums. And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.' Superheroes are borderline fascists as it is (how else would you describe people with great power who live by their own moral code and enforce it on others?), so I don't think it's a good idea to push this any further. :)

Others can feel free to interpret the genre in their own way, but in my games, superheroes are held to a higher moral standard (by themselves, by the community, by karma) than anyone else. And the genre supports this. Sometimes they may be faced withs ome very hard choices - but more of than not, when faced with two unpalatable options, they find the third choice. Yes, this means superheroes don't live in the real world. They're a fantasy, and they don't stand up to real-world scrutiny.

Note, I'm not counting Image-style character (Wildcats, et al) as superheroes for the purpose of the above discussion. That's because I don't see them as superheroes.
C'mon, this is Eurostar, each member has the power of a modern army. You don't let an army or a terrorist organization wander around your country doing whatever it pleases because they threaten to take a civilian hostage! LOL!Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.
As for teleporting out and taking the floor, well *I* certainly wouldn't expect anyone to die from that. If he was trying to kill civilians I imagine a 750pt character could have found a more effective method. No-one's saying he tried to kill the civilians. He just didn't care about them. And yes, if someone teleported a floor out of a building, I'd expect a collapse. Ignorance can't be used here - the guy was warned, and did it anyway.

[Phraze]

Originally posted by Agent X
And this makes me wonder why, when given a vacuum of information, that we would assume Patriot purposely antagonizes his players.

This is so not what I said (or meant to say). I said that Stellar's player might have felt railroaded by the scenario, which is not to say that Patriot purposely antagonized him, just that the player could have interpreted the scenario that way. I'm not disturbed by the PC's leaving at that moment. The only immediate threat to the winery staff came through PC anatagonism. Removing the PC's should have removed the danger, to a far greater degree than, say, starting a super-battle would have.

I really didn't intend to get into Monday Morning Quarterback thing on the scenario, except to mention that people were acting like the PC was this purposeful killer, when from what I had read, the PC was just acting like an ass and might not have intended to kill anybody. This isn't like driving drunk (oblique Rodney King ref) where you can unintentionally cause real harm in the real world. The GM makes all decisions about the consequences of actions in the game world, and GM's often make consequences worse for players who act like asses. As far as I can tell, it was the GM's decision to collapse the building, setting in motion this whole chain of events. Now nobody's happy: the GM's upset at Stellar, the other players are upset at Stellar, and Stellar feels he was set up. I think we've all been in games which have turned bad, when no one in particular really wanted things to go that way. The thing now is to figure out what went wrong and how to patch things up, and I think Trebuchet's suggestions cover the bases pretty well.

[tesuji]

As for why we would assume he was purposefully antagonizing the players, I doubt anyone said that.

I do think, as a general rule, when I only get one side of a situation, it is more productive to analyze the actions of the side REPORTING than to analyze the other side for which you only have the one biased representation.

I asked these two questions of Patriot several pages ago and hopefully he will have time to answer sometime soon. The answers will, to me at least, be much much more informative than any further descriptions about how bad, evil or socially uncouth the player-to-be-bashed is.


Originally posted by tesuji
Ok lets put this is a different perspective...

Questions to the Patriot...

1. Do you feel the NPC's reactions and severity of their opinions and speed with which events have transpired were at all influenced by your being ticked off at the player?

2. What do you see as faults or errors ON YOUR PART in how this was setup and handled so far? Did you do anything wrong? Have you erred? cIf so, how and more over, how will you do better in the future?

[J4y]

And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.'

My point is, that ain't supervillians. If villians who can wipe out cities on a whim take hostages as the first action your heros are either going to be perpetually backing off to save single hostages and watching said villians wipe out said cities, or they're going to get their hands bloody.

Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.

We're not dealing with Bucky the 2-bit hood with a shotgun in a bank but a world class threat. While reasonable means should be taken to protect civilians, you can't seriously think the U.S. would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein threatened to kill one of his maids if they did? It is the policy of superpowers to kill a few to save a lot.

[Zed-F]

Superheroes are held to a higher moral standard (by themselves, by the community, by karma) than anyone else. And the genre supports this. Sometimes they may be faced withs ome very hard choices - but more of than not, when faced with two unpalatable options, they find the third choice.
Entirely correct, in my view. J4y, heroes don't kill a few to save many. They find a way to save everyone, or at least do their best to find it. While that may not be possible or practical in the real world, it IS possible in 4-colour comics, which is what the campaign is. If Stellar had tried to work with the scenario the Patriot presented, Patriot would have made sure he had all the clues to figure out how to get his teammate back without ripping the building apart.

[Korvar]

Originally posted by J4y
We're not dealing with Bucky the 2-bit hood with a shotgun in a bank but a world class threat. While reasonable means should be taken to protect civilians, you can't seriously think the U.S. would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein threatened to kill one of his maids if they did? It is the policy of superpowers to kill a few to save a lot.

Superheroes have many, many options available to them that governments do not. Governments can only really use force on others by messy things called "wars" that despite current advertising, are not exactly precise things. The possible harm to Saddam's maid is going to be overshadowed by the harm the invasion will inevitably cause.

Superheroes can do all sorts of odd things that may allow them to get hostages out of harm's way, thus negating the threat. Also, their default mode of conflict should have zero civillian casualties. So civilian casualties are going to be more of a concern to a superhero.

Plus it's in-genre, dammit.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by J4y
And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.'

My point is, that ain't supervillians. If villians who can wipe out cities on a whim take hostages as the first action your heros are either going to be perpetually backing off to save single hostages and watching said villians wipe out said cities, or they're going to get their hands bloody.

Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.

We're not dealing with Bucky the 2-bit hood with a shotgun in a bank but a world class threat. While reasonable means should be taken to protect civilians, you can't seriously think the U.S. would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein threatened to kill one of his maids if they did? It is the policy of superpowers to kill a few to save a lot.

If the heroes decided to kill a few to save many, then they definitely don't belong in the 4-color genre, or even being called "hero" in my book. If you are playing some special forces campaign that may be acceptable, but not in a super-heroic game. Also, superpowers are not super-powered people. If a superhero is a collection of millions of people in some super-gestalt, then maybe your view might hold true. But different genre again. A group of elected (or whatever) officials making a policy decision are not super-heroes (and not really heroes either, just button pushers - the real heroes are the ones putting their lives on the line, not sending others to kill or die).

Look at the comics - especially the ones involving war. Just finished re-reading the avengers/kang story arc. Only two incidents that can be pinned down as killing - and then the ones who die by the heroes hands are combatants themselves - not innocents. Look at Captain America in Avengers 54 (if you have/can find it) - definitely not a "it's only a few lives" type character.

You earlier referred to Eurostar as each having the power of an army (or similar). Apparently the 700+ point (I believe that was the amount quoted) player character is in the same book. He had no other option than the one he took?

I'm curious about the teleport though - if he's only used it twice, is that a normal side effect or something special (i.e. an intended side-effect of using the power a certain way). That also has a part in the whole story.

Like the villain angle (reading the current Thor storyline :) ).

[J4y]

You keep saying it's not in genre, but the villian's actions aren't either. As I pointed out, you simply cannot take hostages like that or your superheroic 4 color campaign grinds to a halt as Eurostar starts keeping hostages around in various locations in the world and would thus be immune to reprisals by superheros. You can't have 4C superhero players when your villians aren't 4C. DNPCs are for hostages, innocent bystanders to make combat harder work and hostages as the focus of the adventure work, but this seem more like having DNPC: Everyone in the world, which really lets the GM bludgeon the players good and hard at whim.

[Pattern Ghost]

Since when aren't hostages in genre?

Since when do we decide what's in genre for someone else's game anyway?

The GM warned the player that the action was inappropriate.

The player proceeded anyway.

Maybe the player thought that the hostage taking was unfair.

Does that justify his actions?

No.

Maybe the GM played the scene out poorly. Maybe he made a snap decision in game, real time, which we could pick apart.

That doesn't excuse a disruptive player. The player should have taken it up with the GM out of game.

[Trebuchet]

Let's put this whole incident into a more mundane setting so we can look at it without arguing about the definition of "superhero."

A half dozen notorious Al-Qaeda terrorists have captured an LAPD SWAT team member and are holding him hostage. After a careful search, the SWAT team figured out that the terrorists are holed up in a Middle Eastern restaurant. In addition to the terrorists, there may be a dozen or more restaurant employees present as well. It is quite possible that some of the restaurant's Muslim employees are actively cooperating with the terrorists, but the SWAT team's commander has no proof of that. As everyone knows, Al-Qaeda terrorists have no compunctions about taking innocent lives, including the captive SWAT team member. However, due to their extensive training, heavy weapons, and special equipment, the SWAT team is vastly more capable than ordinary police officers.

The SWAT team entered through the kitchen, where they found a cook and a chef. They asked to be taken to whomever was in charge. They were taken to the terrorist's leader, who then invited the team to dinner. He had something important he wanted to discuss with them about the American government. The SWAT team leader violently opposed the idea, and the terrorist's leader had enough of him. The terrorist leader then grabbed a cook and held a knife to his throat and threatened to kill him if the team didn't leave. The SWAT team leader replied, "So? He isn't innocent; he works for you." He then proceeded to remotely set off a shaped charge whch blew out a structural support, and in the confusion the SWAT team recovered it's kidnapped member and escaped from the building. This action caused the subsequent collapse of the building , killing 6 civilians, and injuring the 2 owners of the restaurant. The SWAT team immediately jumped into their SWAT van and departed to go grab some beers at their favorite pub because (after all) they'd successfully rescued their kidnapped member, irregardless of the fact that civilians were still in danger and the Al-Qaeda terrorists had not yet been apprehended.

Now, does anyone think the SWAT team acted properly here? If you read about a similar incident in the LA Times, would you call for the SWAT team to be given medals for heroism or fired from the LAPD?

Perhaps the real question Patriot needs the answer to is do his players still want to play in a 4-color campaign, or do they want to move into a more "Iron Age" type game? It's no good running a 4-color game if that's not where the players are.

[badger3k]

Good reply Treb.


Originally posted by J4y
You keep saying it's not in genre, but the villian's actions aren't either. As I pointed out, you simply cannot take hostages like that or your superheroic 4 color campaign grinds to a halt as Eurostar starts keeping hostages around in various locations in the world and would thus be immune to reprisals by superheros. You can't have 4C superhero players when your villians aren't 4C. DNPCs are for hostages, innocent bystanders to make combat harder work and hostages as the focus of the adventure work, but this seem more like having DNPC: Everyone in the world, which really lets the GM bludgeon the players good and hard at whim.

I can recall lots of hostages in the older comics - villains were always grabbing someone. Look at the old superman black and whites. Hostages are part of the tradition.

Without knowing the powers of the other characters, what they could have done is hard to say. Surprise moves to grab the innocent, distract Fiacho with illusions or mental attack, magnetize the knife (use TK), use speed to get behind him, talk to him? If nothing else, the characters still had an obligation to try to save the non-powered people. With Eurostars casual killing history, the heroes had an obligation to free all the innocents (and remember - they are all innocent until proven guilty), once combat seemed to be inevitable (although it may have not been). For every Swat team there is a hostage negotiator to defuse situations like that. Just because a man can fly doesn't mean he can ignore the victims of a criminal or terrorist - super-powered or no.

[Patriot]

Stellar was not able to attend game tonight, but this is what transpired:
The team grouped at based to discuss the state of the team,
and what should be done about the current situation. it was a near unanimous descision, suppport Stellar, but this shouldnt go unpunished(details still being worked out)
Many wondered what his punishment would be, and they found out it could come in a wide range of forms, from 30 years of community service for Leichtenstein ( and cant leave the borders) incarciration, or termination. questions were posed...where is Eurostar?: A member was dispatched to try and figure this out.

during the team meeting , a lot of other things were discussed, like doing more for the community, tearing down the team and re-building it , etc, in the end they all decided that the team should work to strive so nothing like this ever hapens again.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Patriot
Stellar was not able to attend game tonight, but this is what transpired:
The team grouped at based to discuss the state of the team,
and what should be done about the current situation. it was a near unanimous descision, suppport Stellar, but this shouldnt go unpunished(details still being worked out)
Many wondered what his punishment would be, and they found out it could come in a wide range of forms, from 30 years of community service for Leichtenstein ( and cant leave the borders) incarciration, or termination. questions were posed...where is Eurostar?: A member was dispatched to try and figure this out.

during the team meeting , a lot of other things were discussed, like doing more for the community, tearing down the team and re-building it , etc, in the end they all decided that the team should work to strive so nothing like this ever hapens again.

Thanks for the update.

Sounds like the team is a but mixed mind. When I read "support Stellar", it sounds very different from the "punishment" options listed. It sounds like accepting any of the three alternatives effectively removes Stellar from the campaign and forces the player to create a new character.

Did they happen to address what happens if Stellar rejects punishment for his actions? Will they continue to back him, or does the team then back up the UN in imposing some form of punishment on Stellar? This would mean that, whatever the character choices, the player is looking at a retired PC. The options from the above seem to be:

- PC in Leichenstein doing community service
- PC incarcerated doing time
- PC terminated doing nothing
- PC on the run

All of which mean PC not operating with the team, so not a viable player character. I'm not sure how you plan to approach this, Patriot. I'd consider a one on one discussion with the player that, basically, the decisions made by the team mean that Stellar WILL be retired from the game, although the manner of such retirement is largely dictated by the player's choices. He can then decide how Stellar will respond to these decisions. If it were me, I woud also rule that, if Stellar chooses to run, or fight against his punishment, he will be an NPC. Maybe play out the hunt/escape, but this can cause hard feelings in the group, so maybe not. I'd lean to "not" if it comes to that - all yoou need is Stellar to kill another PC or some similar result! :(

Maybe the character is repentant and removed from the campaign (and we all know sentences like these can be reduced by actions in the game world). Maybe he's not and the team has to bring him in - whether to run that on-screen or off-screen is a good question. As is whether Stelllar is a PC or an NPC for the hunt/battle.

Either way, the player needs a new character and Stellar is out of the campaign, at least as a PC. Maybe you even get an new megavillain, given the power level you noted earlier.

[J4y]

Now, does anyone think the SWAT team acted properly here? If you read about a similar incident in the LA Times, would you call for the SWAT team to be given medals for heroism or fired from the LAPD?

In real life a SWAT team wouldn't do anything like walk up to the terroist leader like that, but in a movie... yep, they'd get medals. Hey, not like they called in gunships to hose the place down and kill a 14 year old boy.

from 30 years of community service for Leichtenstein ( and cant leave the borders) incarciration,

Hehe, for pulling a floor, which I think it causing death in the first place is silly, he gets 30 years? Please tell me the Eurostar guy that threatened to kill the hostage is going to get executed then. Unlike accidental death during an operation against a terrorist organization, things like kidnapping, hostage taking with intent to kill etc. ARE actual crimes. Oh let me guess, $400 fine for Eurostar.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by J4y
[b]from 30 years of community service for Leichtenstein ( and cant leave the borders) incarciration,

Hehe, for pulling a floor, which I think it causing death in the first place is silly, he gets 30 years? Please tell me the Eurostar guy that threatened to kill the hostage is going to get executed then. Unlike accidental death during an operation against a terrorist organization, things like kidnapping, hostage taking with intent to kill etc. ARE actual crimes. Oh let me guess, $400 fine for Eurostar.

Yeah, pull the structural support from most buildings and they're just fine - they stand there perfectly OK. No risk at all to the occupants. The sense I got is that this isn't a 3' hole - it's a massive portion of the floor which gets extracted along with everyone else in the area.

As far as actual crimes, breaking and entering is also a crime, as is unlawful entry. Which one applies here depends on whether Team Vanguard actually had to break something.

"an operation against a terrorist organization" seems to imply some official sanction, which a SWAT team at least would have had. I've seen nothing to indicate Team Vanguard had any official sanction. This would logically come from Leichenstein itself (action within their borders would be subject to their laws) or an international body (such as the UN - which would imply they wouldn't be quite so loud about the results). The United States, for example, would have no jurisdiction outside their borders, so official sanction from US authorities would not support Team Vanguard's actions (not that there is any indication US sanction was provided either).

So, based on the facts, and assuming i've got them right (Patriot - any misconceptions above?), Stellar/Team Vanguard's actions caused the death of several civilians during a quasi-military action not sanctioned by any legitimate authority. In other words, a terrorist action.

I suspect Eurostar is convicted and sentenced. Now catch them and get them to serve their crimes. There is every possibility Stellar will soon be convicted and sentenced, with the same problem.

And what would have happened if Team Vanguard had, in fact, protected the civilians and maybe brought in a Eurostar member or two? Well, I suspect the results of their actions would have overridden their blatant illegality, and they would have had medals pinned on them. Instead, Stellar managed to open them up to having something entirely different "pinned on them". :eek:

[Agent X]

Originally posted by J4y
Now, does anyone think the SWAT team acted properly here? If you read about a similar incident in the LA Times, would you call for the SWAT team to be given medals for heroism or fired from the LAPD?

In real life a SWAT team wouldn't do anything like walk up to the terroist leader like that, but in a movie... yep, they'd get medals. Hey, not like they called in gunships to hose the place down and kill a 14 year old boy.

from 30 years of community service for Leichtenstein ( and cant leave the borders) incarciration,

Hehe, for pulling a floor, which I think it causing death in the first place is silly, he gets 30 years? Please tell me the Eurostar guy that threatened to kill the hostage is going to get executed then. Unlike accidental death during an operation against a terrorist organization, things like kidnapping, hostage taking with intent to kill etc. ARE actual crimes. Oh let me guess, $400 fine for Eurostar. You need to study how houses are built.

[Phraze]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Yeah, pull the structural support from most buildings and they're just fine - they stand there perfectly OK. No risk at all to the occupants. The sense I got is that this isn't a 3' hole - it's a massive portion of the floor which gets extracted along with everyone else in the area.


Once again, I think this is mostly a case of people getting different interpretations from the brief summary of facts presented by Patriot. Without seeing a map (and I don't really want to see one at this point, since Patriot makes things sound as if the situation is well on its way to being resolved), I gathered from the description (iirc, he teleported the group and a section of floor, killing normals in another section of the building) I gathered that he took a section of floor (only) out of a fairly large room. Admittedly, I'm not an architect, but it doesn't strike me that this would cause the collapse of a building, unless supporting pillars or load-bearing walls were taken as well, especially if the floor were taken without a violent shock, which is what I imagine in a teleport situation. Flooring doesn't strike me as a "structural support" in the way walls or pillars are, especially one room in a much larger structure. It may make it unstable, but I wouldn't see it collapsing the building so completely and instantly that more of the normals coudn't have gotten out.

But then, of course, Stellar wouldn't have been taught a lesson.

Then again, this is a very old winery, which means the room in question may have contained a lot of pillars which were taken with the floor, in which case I would expect a collapse...

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Phraze
Once again, I think this is mostly a case of people getting different interpretations from the brief summary of facts presented by Patriot. Without seeing a map (and I don't really want to see one at this point, since Patriot makes things sound as if the situation is well on its way to being resolved), I gathered from the description (iirc, he teleported the group and a section of floor, killing normals in another section of the building) I gathered that he took a section of floor (only) out of a fairly large room. Admittedly, I'm not an architect, but it doesn't strike me that this would cause the collapse of a building, unless supporting pillars or load-bearing walls were taken as well, especially if the floor were taken without a violent shock, which is what I imagine in a teleport situation. Flooring doesn't strike me as a "structural support" in the way walls or pillars are, especially one room in a much larger structure. It may make it unstable, but I wouldn't see it collapsing the building so completely and instantly that more of the normals coudn't have gotten out.

But then, of course, Stellar wouldn't have been taught a lesson.

Then again, this is a very old winery, which means the room in question may have contained a lot of pillars which were taken with the floor, in which case I would expect a collapse... Why are we questioning Patriot's interpretation in this way? I assumed that when he said "floor" that included support structures since there was a collapse. To think otherwise is, frankly, to insult Patriot's intelligence without cause.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y
In real life a SWAT team wouldn't do anything like walk up to the terroist leader like that, but in a movie... yep, they'd get medals. Hey, not like they called in gunships to hose the place down and kill a 14 year old boy.Let's leave aside the obvious stupidity of approaching the winery so openly. Trying to sneak in may have been pointless, given Mentalla's membership in Eurostar. And police commanders often have to negotiate face to face in hostage situations.

My point is not so much that teleporting out the floor caused deaths as that after rescuing their captured teammate, Team Vanguard made absolutely no attempt to go back in and apprehend Eurostar or to rescue any of the normals in the building. Unless that member was critically injured, and Patriot gave us no information to suggest that, the team failed to act in a heroic manner. Even if Captain America is hurt the Avengers don't hightail it back to Avengers Manor while Ultron 5 is still on the rampage in Manhattan. Patriot made it quite clear in another thread that Team Vanguard was more than a match for Eurostar in a straight up fight.

[J4y]

Why are we questioning Patriot's interpretation in this way? I assumed that when he said "floor" that included support structures since there was a collapse. To think otherwise is, frankly, to insult Patriot's intelligence without cause.

Even removing a lot of support structure wouldn't mean a catastrophic collapse of many buildings, and it really would have just teleported the floor (touch only) and not load bearing walls, and it's 5pts per 100kg so...

Regardless it wasn't an overtly hostile act, he wasn't TRYING to kill civilians (I'm assuming.) A superpowered fight with knockback blowing out load bearing walls is going to kill civilians to then, and generally I don't think people would consider holding the players accountable then. I don't think superheros are held to be accountable for incidental deaths they weren't trying to cause when legitimatly fighting crime.

As far as actual crimes, breaking and entering is also a crime, as is unlawful entry. Which one applies here depends on whether Team Vanguard actually had to break something.

I think most governments are pretty understanding with their laws for actions taken to save someone's life. If someone's life is in immediate danger (the kidnap victim) they're not going to charge you with break and enter, property destruction etc.

[Patriot]

A few team members have the KS: Law skill, so were able to hit the books to find out what the range of punishments would be, Ranging from mild(Basically becomeing Leichentsteins Heros for 30 years) to incarceration (stronghold type, in my game depending on the severity of the crime , being free to move about , total lock down, or hotsleep) or termination...yes this is a wide range, but if we wing up roleplaying it , the better the trial goes, the lighter the sentence he will get if any.

Out of game I posted a e-mail to Stellar, Suggesting that he think about writing a few new characters....His Aunt(The player whos character was kidnapped says he has no clue anything was done wrong....and still thinks Eurostar is setting him up)

I think I mentioned this before, Team Vanguard has Limited UN sanction (meaning they can get what they need much more often then someone with out it, but they still need to ask)
The kidnapped member was treated well...No harm , well fed etc.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by J4y
Why are we questioning Patriot's interpretation in this way? I assumed that when he said "floor" that included support structures since there was a collapse. To think otherwise is, frankly, to insult Patriot's intelligence without cause.

Even removing a lot of support structure wouldn't mean a catastrophic collapse of many buildings, and it really would have just teleported the floor (touch only) and not load bearing walls, and it's 5pts per 100kg so...

Regardless it wasn't an overtly hostile act, he wasn't TRYING to kill civilians (I'm assuming.) A superpowered fight with knockback blowing out load bearing walls is going to kill civilians to then, and generally I don't think people would consider holding the players accountable then. I don't think superheros are held to be accountable for incidental deaths they weren't trying to cause when legitimatly fighting crime.

As far as actual crimes, breaking and entering is also a crime, as is unlawful entry. Which one applies here depends on whether Team Vanguard actually had to break something.

I think most governments are pretty understanding with their laws for actions taken to save someone's life. If someone's life is in immediate danger (the kidnap victim) they're not going to charge you with break and enter, property destruction etc. You're assuming a lot. Patriot, the guy who envisioned the winery in the first place, decided that whatever was teleported with Stellar was enough to cause a collapse. Patriot is the only one not assuming anything about the construction of the winery so it's his call to make to determine the likelihood of it happening.

A superhero wouldn't be held accountable for the death of an innocent in a superfight - assuming that the hero couldn't avoid the death of the innocent. Stellar chose a fairly destructive solution to his problem and is facing the repercussions of his action. I gather from Patriot that this was not the only option available to Stellar.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Patriot
I think I mentioned this before, Team Vanguard has Limited UN sanction (meaning they can get what they need much more often then someone with out it, but they still need to ask)
The kidnapped member was treated well...No harm , well fed etc. Sounds to me like your feeling is still that Stellar is the one most wrong in this incident. You're the GM; that's ultimately your call in your campaign. Only you know all the circumstances of this incident. While in my own long running campaign I am the primary GM I share GM responsibilities with two other GMs, Mentor and Blackjack, and the GM running always has the final call in such situations. In this particular instance, I'd assume a several hundred year old stone building is not as structurally sound as a modern steel framed structure.

The fact the captured hero was well treated merely reinforces my general conclusion that Team Vanguard failed to act heroically in this entire incident. Stellar was just the most egregious violator of the superheroic code. Harming the civilians was accidental; failing to return to rescue them or apprehend Eurostar was deliberate and callous IMHO.

[gewing]

I was just thinking. The Israeli Gov't, iirc, and several others assumes hostages are dead and then if they get them back alive, GREAT.

Maybe I am to Grey scale in my gaming, but I tend to think any well known super terrorist who kidnaps one of my team-mates intends to kill them.

I don't know anything else about Stellar's powers, but I have to say, if it was me, I would have been more likely to blow Fiacho's head off, if I could.

It hasn't been made clear, though, how is the power used structured? Was the removal of the floor deliverate, or a side effect that he might have forgotten about?



Originally posted by Lupus
And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.' Superheroes are borderline fascists as it is (how else would you describe people with great power who live by their own moral code and enforce it on others?), so I don't think it's a good idea to push this any further. :)

Others can feel free to interpret the genre in their own way, but in my games, superheroes are held to a higher moral standard (by themselves, by the community, by karma) than anyone else. And the genre supports this. Sometimes they may be faced withs ome very hard choices - but more of than not, when faced with two unpalatable options, they find the third choice. Yes, this means superheroes don't live in the real world. They're a fantasy, and they don't stand up to real-world scrutiny.

Note, I'm not counting Image-style character (Wildcats, et al) as superheroes for the purpose of the above discussion. That's because I don't see them as superheroes.Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.No-one's saying he tried to kill the civilians. He just didn't care about them. And yes, if someone teleported a floor out of a building, I'd expect a collapse. Ignorance can't be used here - the guy was warned, and did it anyway.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by gewing
I was just thinking. The Israeli Gov't, iirc, and several others assumes hostages are dead and then if they get them back alive, GREAT.

Maybe I am to Grey scale in my gaming, but I tend to think any well known super terrorist who kidnaps one of my team-mates intends to kill them.

I don't know anything else about Stellar's powers, but I have to say, if it was me, I would have been more likely to blow Fiacho's head off, if I could.

It hasn't been made clear, though, how is the power used structured? Was the removal of the floor deliverate, or a side effect that he might have forgotten about? The problem is that you aren't looking at it from the perspective of being a superhumanly powerful and extraordinarily versatile fighter/rescuer. Responding as an Israeli special forces member doesn't really apply, especially if the GM is running a 4-Color game.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by J4y
As far as actual crimes, breaking and entering is also a crime, as is unlawful entry. Which one applies here depends on whether Team Vanguard actually had to break something.

I think most governments are pretty understanding with their laws for actions taken to save someone's life. If someone's life is in immediate danger (the kidnap victim) they're not going to charge you with break and enter, property destruction etc. [/B]

Which is what I said - had they gone on to do something heroic - ie actually apprehend Eurostar; evacuate the civilians, etc. - the world would probably have looked the other way (maybe someone would say something about the specific legalities, but he would be hushed pretty quickly).

They didn't, though. Instead, they trashed an historic landmark (by the way, architecture and efficiency of load bearing walls may not match what you know today when the property's construction dates back over 500 years), fled without checking to see if any injuries were caused and, all around, pretty much look like they have committed an act of terrorism against Leichenstein.

BTW, plocie officers will generally let a suspect flee rather than fire a shot if at risk of hitting civilians. Simialrly, high speed chases are not entered into routinely. The first role of the police is to protect. If supers aren't prepared to live up to that ideal, they will likely find themselves having trouble with legitimate law enforcement (and the press).

And where did it say their teammate's life was in imminent danger? By overtly invading the winery, Team Vanguard may well have palced their teammate's life in more danger than it was.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by J4y
Regardless it wasn't an overtly hostile act, he wasn't TRYING to kill civilians (I'm assuming.) A superpowered fight with knockback blowing out load bearing walls is going to kill civilians to then, and generally I don't think people would consider holding the players accountable then. I don't think superheros are held to be accountable for incidental deaths they weren't trying to cause when legitimatly fighting crime.

Negligent homocide and manslaughter are both criminal terms for causing death without intending to.

How accountable should the supers be? Let's look to the source. How often do we see a comic hero thinking he needs to move the battle away from innocent civilians, sometimes even jeopardizing his own position to do so? THAT is heroism (and Protective of Innocents) in action.

How "accidental" is it to blow off a 20d6 explosion inside a high risen and hope not to cause any structural damage and/or harm to the residents? Not very. Stellar's high volume teleport apparantly has a nasty little side effect which has been seen in play before - he chose to risk the lives of evryone in the winery rather than look for a solution that did not place innocent lives at risk.

[gewing]

like I said, maybe I'm more grey than 4-color.

This reminds me about one of my problems with "Kingdom Come" Superman iirc basically said- no superhuman has any need to kill, and if you do, you are a criminal and I will lock you up.

Problem is, He is capable of flying through an armed mob and disarming them ALL on his higher dex before any of them have any action.

Most are not. Kind of like if the US told Lichtenstein that they have to build an armored Corps to defend themselves. Only problem is, I don't recall, are there that many people in the country? and where would they get the money?

OK, that is a little silly, but just because the next best thing to a god can do something, doesn't mean everyone can.


Originally posted by Agent X
The problem is that you aren't looking at it from the perspective of being a superhumanly powerful and extraordinarily versatile fighter/rescuer. Responding as an Israeli special forces member doesn't really apply, especially if the GM is running a 4-Color game.

[gewing]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Which is what I said - had they gone on to do something heroic - ie actually apprehend Eurostar; evacuate the civilians, etc. - the world would probably have looked the other way (maybe someone would say something about the specific legalities, but he would be hushed pretty quickly).

snip---
And where did it say their teammate's life was in imminent danger? By overtly invading the winery, Team Vanguard may well have palced their teammate's life in more danger than it was.

So you feel they should have done what? Leave their team-mate in the hands of some of the most deadly terrorists in the world?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by gewing
like I said, maybe I'm more grey than 4-color.

This reminds me about one of my problems with "Kingdom Come" Superman iirc basically said- no superhuman has any need to kill, and if you do, you are a criminal and I will lock you up.

Problem is, He is capable of flying through an armed mob and disarming them ALL on his higher dex before any of them have any action.

Most are not. Kind of like if the US told Lichtenstein that they have to build an armored Corps to defend themselves. Only problem is, I don't recall, are there that many people in the country? and where would they get the money?

OK, that is a little silly, but just because the next best thing to a god can do something, doesn't mean everyone can. Sounds to me like Stellar is heading toward Superman territory in terms of relative power in their campaign.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by gewing
So you feel they should have done what? Leave their team-mate in the hands of some of the most deadly terrorists in the world? They should have followed the conventions of a 4-Color Comic and trusted in their GM to have contrived circumstances to make it possible for a positive result to happen.

In one of the campaigns I am playing in, our GM had put us up against something inspired by a demon in the show Angel (which I am totally ignorant of). This demoness beguiled anyone who looked at her. In two sessions she had managed to beguile half the team, and the only ones not beguiled by her had no idea how to deal with a dimension-conquering creature who we couldn't look at to fight. By trusting in our GM to be fair and trusting him not to put us in an unwinnable situation we struggled to find a solution and eventually reached one, although it was a close thing. Of course, that was what made victory sweet in this case. It was earned.

[J4y]

BTW, plocie officers will generally let a suspect flee rather than fire a shot if at risk of hitting civilians.

Eurostar isn't an innocent until proven guilty suspect, they're world-class threats that wouldn't even get a trial because the world knows they're guilty. Heck, in the case of Eurostar, while they flee the innocent civilians are mind controlled to pick up tree branchs and kill the officers!

Heck, while they're at it, they should investiage to see if Eurostar killed the civilians as a frameup.

[Agent X]

Patriot, this is my suggestion. Retcon. Fix the situation so that Stellar's teleportation didn't kill anyone.

However, have the character retired.

The "facing the consequences" angle just won't be fun to role play. You are better off handling that OOC and retiring the character with his good name intact. That will leave your friend feeling a little less embittered, although he shouldn't be embittered to begin with. It is a practical solution and it sounds a lot more palatable to your players who apparently like the player too much to hold him completely responsible for his playing style.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by J4y
BTW, plocie officers will generally let a suspect flee rather than fire a shot if at risk of hitting civilians.

Eurostar isn't an innocent until proven guilty suspect, they're world-class threats that wouldn't even get a trial because the world knows they're guilty. Heck, in the case of Eurostar, while they flee the innocent civilians are mind controlled to pick up tree branchs and kill the officers!

Heck, while they're at it, they should investiage to see if Eurostar killed the civilians as a frameup. What's your point?

[Patriot]

I give you Stellar!

[gewing]

any chance for a version the rest of us can read?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Agent X
They should have followed the conventions of a 4-Color Comic and trusted in their GM to have contrived circumstances to make it possible for a positive result to happen.

BINGO!

Any campaign will fail if the players refuse to follow genre conventions, or if the GM refuses to make success within the genre conventions possible.

One of those conventions would be to sit down and listen to the villain while figuring out one's next move. It's a staple of the genre that the villain likes to gloat when he's got the hero(s) in his power, and often reveals a little too much. Or offers up the hostage in exchange for some service which isn't contrary to the heroes' psych lims ("Bring me back Blackbeard's Treasure Chest and I will release your teammate")

For some fine examples, check out most old Fantastic Four stories where they "visit" Latveria.

[lemming]

Originally posted by gewing
any chance for a version the rest of us can read?
Aw come on. Read the XML. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by J4y
Eurostar isn't an innocent until proven guilty suspect, they're world-class threats that wouldn't even get a trial because the world knows they're guilty.

"The world knows they're guilty"...sounds like justice to me.

Most modern systems of justice havge this little concept of "innocent until proven guilty". The world court tried the leaders of Nazi Germany, whom I suspect "the world" knew were guilty.

Given the responses from most posters on this board, the world also knows Stellar is guilty, so let's execute him without trial as well.

My, this is easy. Who else do we know is guilty? Maybe the whole of Europe is guilty of aiding and abetting terrorism - how could Eurostar have hidden there so easily for so many years otherwise? Should we just nuke all of Europe? That should take care of Eurostar, right?

[Chuckg]

Well, most normal criminals don't dress up in distinctive costumes and go out and butcher hundreds of people in broad daylight, screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" to the world news media.

Eurostar *does* do that kind of thing. Thus making guilt a lot easier to distinguish in their case. Cripes, they *revel* in listing their misdeeds for the world.

As somebody cogently pointed out in the thread, Eurostar's the freaking Al Qaeda of Earth-Champions Europe. Nations declare military alerts whenever they're spotted inside their territory. UNTIL is seriously considering putting together a dedicated *UN peacekeeping force* for the sole purpose of booting Eurostar's heads.

In this kind of political situation, I can't imagine any country granting Eurostar sanctuary that wasn't /already/ an international pariah... 'cause if they weren't before, they durn sure will be now.

Edit -- and as far as 'not being known' -- a) UNTIL has surveillance resources comparable to SHIELD's b) At least half the team has so many Distinctive Features they can't go out in daylight *anywhere* without being noticed and c) the PCs saw them there, didn't they? Never mind how not-believed they are, any one of them can consent to a telepathic scan.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
Well, most normal criminals don't dress up in distinctive costumes and go out and butcher hundreds of people in broad daylight, screaming "LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!" to the world news media.

Adding the difficulty of proving WHO was in that "distinctive costume" at the time the crime was committed.

Or do we just shoot everyone with a similar physique so we can be sure?

How much damage could Eurostar cause by going out in a new costume, committing some public acts, then leaving some poor kidnapped schmo in the suit to be captured and "executed for his crimes"?

[Chuckg]

> Adding the difficulty of proving WHO was in that "distinctive
> costume" at the time the crime was committed.

Not all of Eurostar wear masks.

AAMOF, Fiacho, Durak, and Feurmacher have Distinctive Features that keep them from being mistaken for anybody else on the planet. Mentalla runs around unmasked. The only two who even begin to have plausible deniability are Scorpia and Ultrasonique.

Edit -- and Ultrasonique has a public ID anyway, so I don't know why he bothers with the mask at all.

Edit II -- not to mention that Eurostar has gladly taken public responsibility for their acts of terror anyway... they freely *confess* who are they are and what they do, what more do you need?

As mentioned in its description, Eurostar is not treated as a criminal threat any longer -- it's treated as a national security threat. Thus is the downside of being one of the world's most notorious terrorist organizations.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Patriot
I give you Stellar!
Ok, so I've been reading the XML (and people thought I was joking. :) )

10 point disad: World Class Surfer?
seems a bit high
And 10 points for a California Accent.
10 pnts: No nose or Mouth feature: What happened to his nose & mouth? Does this help him surf since he doesn't get water up the nose? And he still has a california accent? I would think he'd sound more like Kenny...
So Claustrophobic, Overconfident, Protective of Innocents/Babes, and a Prankster. (15,15,20,20 pnts)
13 PRE and he's the leader? or am misrembering?

For that much experience, he's got a lot of flaws.

I can't find the power that would allow the winery collapse.
x4 mass on the teleport which wouldn't get very much if he's pulling out teammates

Datona Beach, Ca. I assume the player wanted a fictional city?

I'll have to load him up in HD when I get home to really do some examination, but my cheese detector was going off.

[J4y]

How much damage could Eurostar cause by going out in a new costume, committing some public acts, then leaving some poor kidnapped schmo in the suit to be captured and "executed for his crimes"?

Now that sounds more like a 4 color plot.

Sorry, I'm just chuckling at the thought of Darksied in a courtroom, and remembering that The Tick vs. Justice episode where Dr. Doom (forget his exact name) got the fact he had a nuclear bomb in his trunk thrown out because it was an "illegal" search.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
AAMOF, Fiacho, Durak, and Feurmacher have Distinctive Features that keep them from being mistaken for anybody else on the planet. Mentalla runs around unmasked. The only two who even begin to have plausible deniability are Scorpia and Ultrasonique.

I see...distinctive features makes it utterly impossible for someone to disguise themselves as you plausibly (or create a reasonable illusion of you taking some action). That's a pretty big plus for something that was supposed to be a disadvantage, don't you think?


Originally posted by Chuckg
Edit -- and Ultrasonique has a public ID anyway, so I don't know why he bothers with the mask at all.

So he can argue that it wasn't him - that must have been an imposter in that suit. When Ah find heem, Ah weell crush his bones to powder weeth sound...no, that ees not 'ow you say - I weell geeve heem a very stern talking-to!"


Originally posted by Chuckg
Edit II -- not to mention that Eurostar has gladly taken public responsibility for their acts of terror anyway... they freely *confess* who are they are and what they do, what more do you need?

In a court? Proof. Physical evidence linking the person sitting im the docket to the crime of which he is accused. If he'll stand there and confess, then that should do it (or it might just get him an insanity plea).

[Chuckg]

By the exact same line of reasoning that you've used above, there is no probable cause to suspect Doctor Destroyer of the destruction of Detroit... it could *hypothetically* have been somebody else in his costume, with his gadgets, using his M.O., and commanding his resources and followers. Hypothetically.

Please try to remember that the necessary standard for a criminal conviction is 'Beyond a /reasonable/ doubt?', not 'Beyond any possible doubt'.

And that's for a conviction... to establish probable cause for going after them in the first place you only need 'a preponderance of the evidence', which Eurostar has long since met in spades.

Eurostar is the most wanted terrorist group in the world. Eurostar can be confirmed to be in Lichtenstein. The government of Lichtenstein is, unless I grossly misunderstood the situation, refusing to either extradite Eurostar or allow the entrance of UN or other law enforcement forces to take Eurostar into custody.

Right then, under international law, the UN Security Council -- or anybody else who has suffered material acts of aggression from Eurostar -- has a /casus belli/ to declare war on Lichtenstein, much less merely having just cause to go in and boot Eurostar's heads into the sixth dimension.

[Chuckg]

> In a court? Proof.

A willing confession and statement of guilt is always proof. Hell, just being caught on a surveillance microphone admitting to the act is proof.

> Physical evidence linking the person sitting im the docket
> to the crime of which he is accused.

Convictions can be obtained without physical evidence, if you have confessions or reliable eyewitnesses.

> If he'll stand there and confess, then that should do it (or it
> might just get him an insanity plea).

Page 49, Champions Universe, "The Law And Superhumans" --



"Wearing a silly-looking costume and committing bizarre crimes does not, per se, prove that the defendant is insane."


That's the relevant Supreme Court decision in the Champions U.

Of the members of Eurostar, Ultrasonique could almost certainly get an insanity plea -- he's already been involuntarily committed once for paranoia. Scorpia's a clear-cut psychopath, but that doesn't usually buy you an insanity plea in today's justice system. Mentalla's very sane, just entirely evil. Ditto Feurmacher. Durak's got explosive rage issues, but again, he can mentally distinguish between the difference between right and wrong and choose whether or not to act on it. Ditto Fiacho.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
By the exact same line of reasoning that you've used above, there is no probable cause to suspect Doctor Destroyer of the destruction of Detroit... it could *hypothetically* have been somebody else in his costume, with his gadgets, using his M.O., and commanding his resources and followers. Hypothetically.

Hypothetically. Now, let's get him in court to make his case.


Originally posted by Chuckg
Please try to remember that the necessary standard for a criminal conviction is 'Beyond a /reasonable/ doubt?', not 'Beyond any possible doubt'.

"Oh, it must have been him. He has an identical suit and he's the same height and build".


Originally posted by Chuckg
And that's for a conviction... to establish probable cause for going after them in the first place you only need 'a preponderance of the evidence', which Eurostar has long since met in spades.

Absolutely. Now we need a law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in Lichtenstein (perhaps granted by international law). Unless I've missed something, Team Vanguard doesn't have that authorization. However, I expectthat would be overlooked had they just gone in and gotten their teammate out (and/or brought in some Eurostar members). Lichtenstein might raise a fuss, of course, but no one else would pay a lot of attention. depending on whether they are known to be harbouring Eurostar willingly, they might be very quiet as well.


Originally posted by Chuckg
Eurostar is the most wanted terrorist group in the world. Eurostar can be confirmed to be in Lichtenstein. The government of Lichtenstein is, unless I grossly misunderstood the situation, refusing to either extradite Eurostar or allow the entrance of UN or other law enforcement forces to take Eurostar into custody.

I'm not certain the blatancy of Lichtenstein's involvement has been clarified. I suspect the rest of the world is not aware that Lichtenstein is intentionally harbouring Eurostar, or I would expect action would have been taken before now. At a minimum some form of UN censure, but more likely a resolution authorizing use of force, possibly including Team Vanguard being sent in with official capacity.


Originally posted by Chuckg
Right then, under international law, the UN Security Council -- or anybody else who has suffered material acts of aggression from Eurostar -- has a /casus belli/ to declare war on Lichtenstein, much less merely having just cause to go in and boot Eurostar's heads into the sixth dimension.

Assuming Lichtenstein's harbouring of Eurostar is known. Otherwise it's just one nation saying "They have metahumans of mass destruction in there. Force is justified!" The lack of action by the UN leads me to believe this connection is not well known, and I think Patriot said as much some time in all these back pages.

As Team Vanguard is not a sovereign state, they are not able to declare war. The four colour history would cut them some slack if they went in and picked off a Eurostar agent/member, or some such. It would not carry over far enough to say "Destruction of an historic landmark and killing civilians is OK - we know your hearts were in the right places! No investigation required."

When a police officer discharges his weapon, there is an investigation. Every time. Supers are already cut a lot of slack by comparison.

Let's look at this from the eyes of the outside world. Did they see Eurostar drag the teammate into the winery? I doubt it. Is it even known that Eurostar was there, or is this an allegation of Team Vanguard? I'm not sure, but I suspect not - certainly Lichtenstein is motivated to prevent any footage getting out, and there were only two survivors who could have leaked it. They do know (presumably through carefully reviewed footage??) that Team Vanguard was there, and that the winery collapsed. There is also a record of a similar incident from use of Stellar's powers.

Will the general public believe Team Vanguard is innocent/set up/framed? Very probably. Does that mean no investigation is required? Not likely! Especially not with the Lichtenstein representative sitting in the UN (which seems to imply their relationship with Eurostar is not general knowledge) making noise about the issue. I sure wouldn't feel safe being in a building with Stellar after all that news!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
> In a court? Proof.

A willing confession and statement of guilt is always proof. Hell, just being caught on a surveillance microphone admitting to the act is proof.

Even signed confessions have been thrown out as coerced, made under duress, etc. And we come back to linking the confession to the accused. Video tape is pretty easily doctored.


Originally posted by Chuckg
> Physical evidence linking the person sitting im the docket
> to the crime of which he is accused.

Convictions can be obtained without physical evidence, if you have confessions or reliable eyewitnesses.

Does Eurostar leave a lot of eyewitnesses?


Originally posted by Chuckg
Of the members of Eurostar, Ultrasonique could almost certainly get an insanity plea -- he's already been involuntarily committed once for paranoia. Scorpia's a clear-cut psychopath, but that doesn't usually buy you an insanity plea in today's justice system. Mentalla's very sane, just entirely evil. Ditto Feurmacher. Durak's got explosive rage issues, but again, he can mentally distinguish between the difference between right and wrong and choose whether or not to act on it. Ditto Fiacho.

Facetiously, how sane is someone who would voluntarily confess to what Eurostar has done. Regardless, insanity wouldn't mean "Innocent - be on your way!". I expect the character would be just as carefully guarded while incarcerated for treatment as he would be in Stronghold.

But never underestimate the power of smart legal counsel! "If the mask doesn't fit you must acquit!". Hmmm...given all the publicity surrounding Eurostar's (or Dr. Destroyer's) activities, is it possible to find an unbiased jury so they can receive a fair trial?

[Chuckg]

> Hypothetically. Now, let's get him in court to make his case.

And eaxctly how do you propose to do that without using enough force to qualify it as a minor war? Destroyer has this habit of atomizing process servers.

Congratulations, we have just established that sometimes, if the supervillain is dangerous enough, you need to go in and kick tremendous amounts of ass just to get the proceedings to the stage where you can *start* talking about rules of evidence and motions in court.

> Even signed confessions have been thrown out as coerced,
> made under duress, etc

Right, and let's see the jury that will believe that somebody coerced Fiacho to send the Eurostar Manifesto to the media before he was even in police custody. I mean, *please*, let's be at least *halfway* plausible here.

> And we come back to linking the confession to the
> accused. Video tape is pretty easily doctored.

And even more easily examined for signs of tampering, especially with superhero tech.

[snip]
> Does Eurostar leave a lot of eyewitnesses?

Despite the approximately three thousand innocent casualties they've left behind them, yes, there are a lot of living eyewitnesses. They're very much into the splashy public attack scenario.

[snip]
> Facetiously, [snip]

You wanna be facetious, do it to your mirror, not here.

[snip]
> But never underestimate the power of smart legal counsel!

Osama bin Laden, if ever brought to trial in US District Court, has exactly as much chance of getting off as Fiacho and Eurostar of doing in any court in Europe.

That is to say, spit and none... and spit just left down.

[Chuckg]

> Assuming Lichtenstein's harbouring of Eurostar is known.

Team Vanguard can voluntarily consent to go on the telepath to verify it.

> Otherwise it's just one nation saying "They have
> metahumans of mass destruction in there. Force is
> justified!"

Well, depending on the nation, that might be enough...

> The lack of action by the UN leads me to believe this
> connection is not well known, and I think Patriot said as
> much some time in all these back pages.

And the lack of action by the UN leads /me/ to believe that UNTIL is being operated via a severe plot hole here, as an in-character UNTIL would gladly launch a significant and immediate effort to confirm or deny the information given them by Vanguard(*)... and given how little Fiacho seems to be hiding himself, not need that much time to so confirm it.



(*) In default sourcebooks, UNTIL would give their left nuts for a reliable Eurostar sighting.

[Phraze]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Any campaign will fail if the players refuse to follow genre conventions, or if the GM refuses to make success within the genre conventions possible.

One of those conventions would be to sit down and listen to the villain while figuring out one's next move. It's a staple of the genre that the villain likes to gloat when he's got the hero(s) in his power, and often reveals a little too much. Or offers up the hostage in exchange for some service which isn't contrary to the heroes' psych lims ("Bring me back Blackbeard's Treasure Chest and I will release your teammate")


I completely agree with this in principle. In the current circumstance, it seems to me what happened (going only from the accounts of Patriot and the other player, and at the risk of having AgentX call me names again) is that the players, or at least Stellar's player, went in expecting a different kind of situation, namely a combat rescue, and reacted accordingly. Even in the comics scenes you describe, there's usually a team hothead who charges the bad guy without thinking (against the team leader's wishes) and gets smacked down for it. In this case, unfortunately, it seems the team leader IS the hothead, which is a problem. I think it's telling that the player, according to Patriot, still doesn't think he did anything wrong, that it was all a set-up. This indicates to me that he did not intend or expect the building to collapse.

My 2 cents: I'm glad that AgentX agrees with me that going through a protracted trial will just be flogging a dead horse, and no fun for anybody. On the other hand, if, say, the investigation were to show that Stellar's power DID collapse the building without a doubt, but that the normals were killed afterward and buried in the rubble to make Team Vanguard look bad, that could have the dual effect of getting the campaign back on track and putting Stellar out to pasture. The UN could let Team Vanguard keep their sanction only if Stellar leaves, for example.

[Chuckg]

As for my own position on the core issue, it boils down to two things:

a) If the DM says "Your proposed action will contradict a Psych Lim, are you sure you want to continue (Y/N)?", then the player proceeds any further Only At His Own Risk.


b) Teleporting that big a chunk out of a building can be reasonably expected to collapse it. Collapsing an occupied building can be reasonably expected to kill at least some of the occupants.

If I had been the DM, I'd have told the player this before he did it, as his character would be experienced enough to know it. IIRC, this is what actually happened, right?

I.e. -- the character's up for negligent homicide.

OTOH, the larger political fallout of such a set of charges depends highly on the situation at the time.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Phraze
I completely agree with this in principle. In the current circumstance, it seems to me what happened (going only from the accounts of Patriot and the other player, and at the risk of having AgentX call me names again) is that the players, or at least Stellar's player, went in expecting a different kind of situation, namely a combat rescue, and reacted accordingly. Even in the comics scenes you describe, there's usually a team hothead who charges the bad guy without thinking (against the team leader's wishes) and gets smacked down for it. In this case, unfortunately, it seems the team leader IS the hothead, which is a problem. I think it's telling that the player, according to Patriot, still doesn't think he did anything wrong, that it was all a set-up. This indicates to me that he did not intend or expect the building to collapse.

My 2 cents: I'm glad that AgentX agrees with me that going through a protracted trial will just be flogging a dead horse, and no fun for anybody. On the other hand, if, say, the investigation were to show that Stellar's power DID collapse the building without a doubt, but that the normals were killed afterward and buried in the rubble to make Team Vanguard look bad, that could have the dual effect of getting the campaign back on track and putting Stellar out to pasture. The UN could let Team Vanguard keep their sanction only if Stellar leaves, for example. There was no ad hominem attack. I think you need to reread my posts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
> Hypothetically. Now, let's get him in court to make his case.

And eaxctly how do you propose to do that without using enough force to qualify it as a minor war? Destroyer has this habit of atomizing process servers.

Congratulations, we have just established that sometimes, if the supervillain is dangerous enough, you need to go in and kick tremendous amounts of ass just to get the proceedings to the stage where you can *start* talking about rules of evidence and motions in court.

He doesn't have to appear in court to have a warant issued for his arrest. With that done, law enforcement needs to consider how to make the arrest stick. Now we call in the supers (of course, we also need to find Dr. D.)


Originally posted by Chuckg
> Even signed confessions have been thrown out as coerced,
> made under duress, etc

Right, and let's see the jury that will believe that somebody coerced Fiacho to send the Eurostar Manifesto to the media before he was even in police custody. I mean, *please*, let's be at least *halfway* plausible here.

Well, as Fiacho's lawyer, I must protest the appointment of jurors who have already decided he's guilty without hearing the evidence. The statements of the media are so prejudicial that it is impossible for my client to receive a fair trial.

BTW, why would Eurostar be tried in a US court? They operate in Europe. I would anticipate a world court would try them (or, perhaps, whatever country they're caught in). With extradition treaties, they'll need Decreased Aging to see their actuial cell - by the time they get trials in all the jurisdictions they're wanted in, they'll be old and grey.


Originally posted by Chuckg
> And we come back to linking the confession to the
> accused. Video tape is pretty easily doctored.

And even more easily examined for signs of tampering, especially with superhero tech.

WHICH superhero? You need one who hasn't demonstrated a bias against Eurostar for their evidence to be credible.


Originally posted by Chuckg
> But never underestimate the power of smart legal counsel!

Osama bin Laden, if ever brought to trial in US District Court, has exactly as much chance of getting off as Fiacho and Eurostar of doing in any court in Europe.

No one could believe OJ got acquitted either. "Better a thousand guilty men go free than a single innocent man is convicted".

[Chuckg]

> He doesn't have to appear in court to have a warant issued
> for his arrest.

For his /arrest/? In 1991, they sent the US Pacific /Fleet/ after him.

They came back with less carriers than they started with.

Nobody's even /trying/ to arrest Destroyer any more, save for whatever PC superheroes who took 'Honesty' or 'Code of the Hero' who happen to face him. After Detroit, the governments of the world have Dr. Destroyer classified in the same strategic threat category as a nuclear attack. Clear and present danger to national security. Cry havoc and let silp the dogs of war time.

[snip]
> Well, as Fiacho's lawyer, I must protest the appointment of
> jurors who have already decided he's guilty without hearing
> the evidence.

I think the European Union also has trial by military tribunal for terrorists of this magnitude. Congrats, the "Law & Order" tactics just aren't going to work.

[snip]
> BTW, why would Eurostar be tried in a US court?

Who said they would be?

[snip]
> WHICH superhero?

Special Agent Teknique of the FBI? Dr. Silverback? Tetsuronin, highest-tech hero of Japan? Just to name three who have never fought Eurostar... oh, right, they're heroes. Therefore, they can be claimed to be 'biased' against mass-murdering psychotic terrorists. To be fair to the mass-murdering psychotic terrorist demographic, their testimony must all be excluded.

Plus, UNTIL has superhero-agent-level tech and can do it on its own. Wait, they're biased against Eurostar too, right?

Great, now I'm getting the Dream Team defense.

> You need one who hasn't demonstrated a bias against
> Eurostar for their evidence to be credible.

Which by your definition of 'bias' apparently rules out any superhero or law enforcement or intelligence agency in either the Western or the Eastern hemisphere... which means forget it.

[snip]
> > Osama bin Laden, if ever brought to trial in US District
> > Court, has exactly as much chance of getting off as
> > Fiacho and Eurostar of doing in any court in Europe.

> No one could believe OJ got acquitted either.

OJ killed (edit) two people. Osama's boys hit the US with the worst sneak attack it ever suffered since Pearl Harbor. Approximately three thousand innocent people dead, and billions of worth of property ruined.

Wow, I think I just gave what the book lists as Eurostar's lifetime score.

The upside of being "the world's greatest terrorists" is that everybody fears and hates you. The downside of being "the world's greatest terrorists" is... that everybody fears and hates you.

Edit -- plus, I can always extradite them to Russia. They've committed crimes in that jurisdiction too... including hijacking about a billion euro in gold from the Russian government's stockpiles? (IIRC)

Let's see you try and run the "OJ Defense" /there/. I think Eurostar might actually get as much as a whole ten minutes between their fair trial, their fair appeal, and their fair two slugs to the back of the head. (Railgun slugs, in Durak's case.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
> WHICH superhero?

Special Agent Teknique of the FBI? Dr. Silverback? Tetsuronin, highest-tech hero of Japan? Just to name three who have never fought Eurostar... oh, right, they're heroes. Therefore, they can be claimed to be 'biased' against mass-murdering psychotic terrorists. To be fair to the mass-murdering psychotic terrorist demographic, their testimony must all be excluded.

Plus, UNTIL has superhero-agent-level tech and can do it on its own. Wait, they're biased against Eurostar too, right?

Great, now I'm getting the Dream Team defense.

> You need one who hasn't demonstrated a bias against
> Eurostar for their evidence to be credible.

Which by your definition of 'bias' apparently rules out any superhero or law enforcement or intelligence agency in either the Western or the Eastern hemisphere... which means forget it.

Anyone who's fought against Eurostar, at the very least. You need an expert witness to testify to the tampering (or lack of same). An expert witness needs to be objective, and that means no one who's directly involved in matters under trial, or who has any form of grudge against the villains.

Now an expert in law enforcement would not, as I understand it, be ruled out provided he was not involved in the case other than as an expert witness and had no prior involvement related to Eurostar personally (such as a relative killed by a Eurostar member).

And it's not my definition of bias. It's the English language's definition of bias.


Originally posted by Chuckg
Edit -- plus, I can always extradite them to Russia. They've committed crimes in that jurisdiction too... including hijacking about a billion euro in gold from the Russian government's stockpiles? (IIRC)

Let's see you try and run the "OJ Defense" /there/. I think Eurostar might actually get as much as a whole ten minutes between their fair trial, their fair appeal, and their fair two slugs to the back of the head. (Railgun slugs, in Durak's case.)

That takes us pretty far away from comparing Stellar's situation to Eurostar's, which is where this all began. I doubt Stellar would get a lot of opportunities to explain how he was only trying to rescue his captured teammate in Russia either.

[Not that I'm familiar with Russian legal procedure, but we'll assume the above for purposes of discussion.]

[Chuckg]

> Anyone who's fought against Eurostar, at the very least. You
> need an expert witness to testify to the tampering (or lack
> of same). An expert witness needs to be objective, and that
> means no one who's directly involved in matters under trial,
> or who has any form of grudge against the villains.

Which is all three examples I listed. Congrats, your clients are going to the slammer.

And that's presuming they were actually taken alive in the first place. Given Eurostar's tendency to resist arrest with overwhelming lethal force, that ain't likely if the capture was left up to police or military agents.

We are talking about people who have 'razed entire city blocks' on their resumes, after all.

[Trebuchet]

I think both you guys are getting way off topic here. Not only was this thread not about what should happen to Eurostar after they're caught (Probably worth a thread in it's own right); but since the heroes in Team Vanguard failed to even attempt too apprehend Eurostar it's also rather pointless. It takes heroes to actually capture bad guys, and you'll pardon me if I observe those are in short supply in some campaigns. :rolleyes:

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I think both you guys are getting way off topic here. Not only was this thread not about what should happen to Eurostar after they're caught (Probably worth a thread in it's own right); but since the heroes in Team Vanguard failed to even attempt too apprehend Eurostar it's also rather pointless. It takes heroes to actually capture bad guys, and you'll pardon me if I observe those are in short supply in some campaigns. :rolleyes:

I thought this started out as a "why's everyone picking on Stellar when Eurostar's the real bad guys" (kinda like, "How come those cops aren't put catching criminals instead of pulling me over for breaking the speed limit laws") discussion, but you're right - it's gone way out.

And I agree with you - we might be in a position to discuss what happens to captured Eurostar members if we'd had some real heroes along, rather than the winery trashers.

[Chuckg]

Well, actually, I posted my opinion of Stellar -- throw the book at 'im -- several posts ago, but it seems to have been entirely ignored in the rush.

[Patriot]

The person playing Stellar has decided to Take some time off from game, for personnal reasons ( I know them but they dont need to be disscussed here).

Thank you for all your input once again, I do appreciate the help.


Now i gotta figure out how to close this up....

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Chuckg
Well, actually, I posted my opinion of Stellar -- throw the book at 'im -- several posts ago, but it seems to have been entirely ignored in the rush.

I saw it, but had no real comments to add - it's pretty close to my thinking as well.

- Stellar was outside the genre conventions

- The player was warned, so he can't say he didn't know he was putting the property, and its occupants, at risk

- In my view, he ignored/weaseled out of his psych lim; at a minimum the frequency should be reduced if being near a villain results in "loss of innocence".

Negilgent homocide would seem the most reasonable charge.

And the political climate is heated by Lechtenstein's desire to cause Stellar (and Team Vanguard) as many difficulties as possible (maybe to prevent a search of the winery ruins before Eurostar can get some evidence out? Maybe just because it's an opportunity to strike at the heroes?)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Patriot
The person playing Stellar has decided to Take some time off from game, for personnal reasons ( I know them but they dont need to be disscussed here).

Thank you for all your input once again, I do appreciate the help.

Now i gotta figure out how to close this up....

I see a couple of options:

1. Stellar has disappeared. When the player is ready to rejoin, he can decide whether he wants Stellar to stay "disappeared" or run some resolution scenario. Then you can decide whether Stellar was in hiding, or some other plot was going on.

2. Team Vanguard is ready to deal with the Stellar problem when something more urgent demands their attention. That "something" keeps them occupied until Stellar's player is ready to come back.

#2 works best if you know how long the player will be missing and have something that can happen in the meantime (can we say "fill-in story"? "Annual"?)

Otherwise, just "disappear" him and give some thought to what may have happened. Surely in his long career, he's met with someone who coul;d remove him from the campaign scene, whether for noble or sinister reasons. Maybe he's kidnapped by aliens/ otherdimensionals/time travellers for whatever reason ("Only his power can save us in our time of need"; "access his teleportation powers to aid in the conquest of the Universe"; "we need another Gladiator for the games - here's a likely target").

EDIT: Whether you have an idea why he disappeared or not, you might just find player speculation and theorizing provides you with a better plot anyway! Then they can "discover" that their speculation was correct and feel great pride in their clever deduction of your plot! :D

[Trebuchet]

Since Patriot was kind enough to provide the Hero Designer file of Stellar; I thought I'd post Stellar so everyone can see. I can't remember when I've last seen a "character" this cheesy.
<font size=+1><b>Stellar</b></font>

<table cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="right"><font size=2><b>Val&#160;&#160;</b></font></td><td><font size=2><b>Char&#160;&#160;&#160;</b></font></td><td><font size=2><b>Cost</b></font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>23/73&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>STR</b></font></td><td><font size=2>13</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>26&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>DEX</b></font></td><td><font size=2>48</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>35&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>CON</b></font></td><td><font size=2>50</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>15&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>BODY</b></font></td><td><font size=2>10</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>12&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>INT</b></font></td><td><font size=2>2</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>17&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>EGO</b></font></td><td><font size=2>14</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>13&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>PRE</b></font></td><td><font size=2>3</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>17&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>COM</b></font></td><td><font size=2>4</font></td></tr><tr><td><font size=2></font></td><td><font size=2>&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2></font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>36/46&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>PD</b></font></td><td><font size=2>1</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>33/43&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>ED</b></font></td><td><font size=2>-4</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>6&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>SPD</b></font></td><td><font size=2>24</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>12&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>REC</b></font></td><td><font size=2>0</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>70&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>END</b></font></td><td><font size=2>0</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>67&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>STUN</b></font></td><td><font size=2>22</font></td></tr><td><font size=2></font></td><td><font size=2>&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2></font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>6"&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>RUN</b></font></td><td><font size=2>0</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>2"&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>SWIM</b></font></td><td><font size=2>0</font></td></tr><tr><td align="right"><font size=2>4 1/2"/14 1/2"&#160;&#160;</font></td><td><font size=2><b>LEAP</b></font></td><td><font size=2>0</font></td></tr></table><b>Characteristics Cost:</b> 187

<table border="0" cellpadding="0"><tr><td align="right"><b>Cost&#160;&#160;</b></td><td><b>Power</b></td><td align="right"><b>END</b></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">25&#160;&#160;</td><td><b><i>Gravitonic Elemental Control: </i></b>Elemental Control, 50-point powers&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">50&#160;&#160;</td><td>1) Force Field (30 PD/30 ED), Hardened (+1/4)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">7</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">16&#160;&#160;</td><td>2) Flight 11", Improved Noncombat Movement (x256) (57 Active Points); OAF (-1)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">6</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">25&#160;&#160;</td><td>3) Density Increase (0 kg mass, +50 STR, +10 PD/ED, -10" KB) (50 Active Points)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">5</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">25&#160;&#160;</td><td>4) Physical Damage Reduction, Resistant, 50% (30 Active Points)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">25&#160;&#160;</td><td>5) Energy Damage Reduction, Resistant, 50% (30 Active Points)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">25&#160;&#160;</td><td>6) Life Support , Eating: Character does not eat, Immunity: All terrestrial diseases and biowarfare agents, Immunity: All terrestrial poisons and chemical warfare agents, Longevity: 1600 Years, Safe in High Pressure, Safe in High Radiation, Safe in Intense Cold, Safe in Intense Heat, Safe in Low Pressure/Vacuum, Self-Contained Breathing, Sleeping: Character does not sleep (49 Active Points)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">25&#160;&#160;</td><td>7) <b><i>Absorption: </i></b>(Total: 30 Active Cost, 30 Real Cost) <i>Energy control:</i> Absorption 3d6 (Energy) (Real Cost: 15) <b>plus</b> <i>Matter control:</i> Absorption 3d6 (Physical) (Real Cost: 15)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">97&#160;&#160;</td><td>8) <b><i>LastDitch: BlackHole effect: </i></b>(Total: 1199 Active Cost, 99 Real Cost) Telekinesis (100 STR), Megascale (1" = 1 km; +1/4), Area Of Effect Nonselective Target (67" Radius; +1), Continuous (+1) (487 Active Points); Increased Endurance Cost 10x END (-4), 3 Charges which Never Recover (-3 1/4), Concentration 0 DCV, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (-1 1/4), Character is totally unaware of nearby events (-1/4), No Range (-1/2), Linked to Killing Attack - Ranged (-1/2), Only to pull towards character (-1/2), Lockout(no other powers in EC can be used) (-1/2), Affects Whole Object (-1/4), Costs Endurance Only Costs END to Activate (-1/4) (Real Cost: 40) <b>plus</b> Killing Attack - Ranged 10d6 (vs. ED), Damage Shield (+1/2), Offensive (+1/4), No Normal Defense Standard (+1), Does body (+1), Continuous (+1) (712 Active Points); Increased Endurance Cost 10x END (-4), 3 Charges which Never Recover (-3 1/4), Concentration 0 DCV, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (-1 1/4), Character is totally unaware of nearby events (-1/4), Stellar takes the effects of the damage sheild(No defense, starts on the next phase) (-1), Linked to Telekinesis (-1/4), Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value (-1/4), Costs Endurance Costs END Every Phase (-1/2), No Knockback (-1/4) (Real Cost: 59) [<b>Notes:</b> The Damage And endurance costs do not take effect till the power is shut off, or the character is ko'ed]&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">1200</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">157&#160;&#160;</td><td><b><i>Gravitonic: </i></b>***Variable Power Pool***, 90 base + 67 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2) (157 Active Points)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>1) <b><i>Darkforce (HKA): </i></b>HKA 3 1/2d6 (plus STR) (vs. ED), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2) (82 Active Points) Real Cost: 82&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">8</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>2) <b><i>Gravitonic Dispersal: </i></b>(Total: 20 Active Cost, 9 Real Cost) Missile Deflection (Any Ranged Attack) (20 Active Points); Requires A PER Roll (-1), Will Not Work Against Large Missiles (-1/4) (Real Cost: 9) Real Cost: 9&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>3) Energy Blast 8d6 (vs. ED), Variable Advantage (+1/2 Advantages +1) (80 Active Points) Real Cost: 80&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">8</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>4) <b><i>Entangle: Gravity-field Wrap: </i></b>Entangle 8d6, 8 DEF (80 Active Points) Real Cost: 80&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">8</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>5) <b><i>Teleport: Space fold : </i></b>Teleportation 17", Improved Noncombat Movement (x1024), x4 Increased Mass (89 Active Points); Conditional Power: Contained in intense magnetic fields : Frequently (-1/2), Gestures: Instant Power (-1/4) Real Cost: 51&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">9</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>6) <b><i>Teleport:Blink: </i></b>+8 with DCV (40 Active Points) Real Cost: 40&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>7) <b><i>Telekinesis: Anti-Gravity Field: </i></b>Telekinesis (24 STR), Area Effect: One-hex (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (90 Active Points) Real Cost: 90&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">9</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>8) Telekinesis (53 STR), Fine Manipulation (90 Active Points); Concentrate: 0 DCV (-1/2) Real Cost: 60&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">9</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>9) <b><i>Light Dispersal: Invisibility: </i></b>Invisibility to Sight Group, Normal Hearing, Usable By Other (x8 Number of Targets +1) (46 Active Points) Real Cost: 46&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right">5</td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">42&#160;&#160;</td><td>Spatial Awareness (Discriminatory, Increased Arc of Perception: 360-Degree, Range, Tracking)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">7&#160;&#160;</td><td>Power Defense (15 points) (15 Active Points); Conditional Power: Contained in intense magnetic fields : Frequently (-1/2), Linked to Force Field (-1/2)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr><tr><td align="right" valign="top">5&#160;&#160;</td><td>Lack of Weakness (-10) for Normal Defense (10 Active Points); Conditional Power: Contained in intense magnetic fields : Frequently (-1/2), Linked to Force Field (-1/2)&#160;</td><td valign="top" align="right"></td></tr></table><b>Powers Cost:</b> 524


<table cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="right"><b>Cost&#160;&#160;</b></td><td><b>Skill</b></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">30&#160;&#160;</td><td>+3 with Overall Level&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>PS: Surfing (DEX-based) 14-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">4&#160;&#160;</td><td>Persuasion (9 Active Points); Only Works On Women: Infrequently (-1) 15-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>Breakfall 14-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>Seduction 12-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>Language: English (Idiomatic, native accent; Native Language)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>AK: City Knowledge: Datona Beach, Ca 8-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>Climbing 8-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>Deduction 8-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">0&#160;&#160;</td><td>Shadowing 8-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">&#160;&#160;</td><td>Team Vanguard Package deal&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">&#160;&#160;</td><td>Vanguard package deal, Package Disads [<b>Notes:</b> Hunted & Hunting Team Destroyer:Watched by UNTIL & PRIMUS :DF:Vanguard member:Rep:Vanguard Member]&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>1) KS: Chicago (INT-based) 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>2) ***PowerStunt*** (INT-based) 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">7&#160;&#160;</td><td>3) Defense Maneuver: I-IV (10 Active Points); Requires A Teamwork Roll (-1/2) &#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>4) Executive Sanction &#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>5) Contacts: President Bush And Cheif Mcaffe &#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>6) Tactics 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">2&#160;&#160;</td><td>7) TF: Large Motorized Ground Vehicles, Large Planes, Submarines&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>8) Teamwork 14-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>9) Systems Operation 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>10) Paramedics 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">1&#160;&#160;</td><td>11) Language: Team Codes (Basic Conversation)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">12&#160;&#160;</td><td>12) Team Uniform &#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">2&#160;&#160;</td><td>13) Vanguard Com &#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>14) AK: Chicago (INT-based) 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>15) KS: Villians (INT-based) 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>16) KS: Team Vanguard (INT-based) 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>17) Interrogation 12-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>18) Criminology 11-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>19) Combat Piloting 14-&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">3&#160;&#160;</td><td>20) Analyze: Combat 11-&#160;</td></tr></table><b>Skills Cost: </b>41


<table cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="right"><b>Cost&#160;&#160;</b></td><td><b>Talent</b></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">1&#160;&#160;</td><td>Lightsleep (3 Active Points); Only When Outdoors: Infrequently (-1)&#160;</td></tr></table><b>Talents Cost:</b> 1


<b>Total Character Cost:</b> 753

<table cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td align="right"><b>Val&#160;&#160;</b></td><td><b>Disadvantages</b></td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">20&#160;&#160;</td><td>Mystery Disadvantage (Very Common, Strong)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">20&#160;&#160;</td><td>Hunted: by aliens from origin of powers: 8- (Occasionally), More Powerful, Harshly Punish, Extensive Non-Combat Influence&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">15&#160;&#160;</td><td>Claustrophobia: Very Common, Moderate&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">15&#160;&#160;</td><td>Overconfidence: Very Common, Moderate&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">20&#160;&#160;</td><td>Psychological Limitation: Rebels against authority: Common, Total&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">20&#160;&#160;</td><td>Psychological Limitation: Protective of innocents/babes: Common, Total&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>Vulnerability: 2 x STUN Desolid Attacks (Uncommon)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>Prankster (Common, Moderate)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>Distinctive Features: No nose or mouth: Concealable, Noticed and Recognizable, Detectable By Commonly-Used Senses&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>Distinctive Features: Typical Californian accent: Concealable, Noticed and Recognizable, Detectable By Commonly-Used Senses&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">5&#160;&#160;</td><td>World class surfer (Uncommon, Moderate)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">&#160;&#160;</td><td>Stellars angels( house keepers among other things)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>1) Dependent NPC: Trixie 8- (Normal)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">10&#160;&#160;</td><td>2) Dependent NPC: Roxie 8- (Normal)&#160;</td></tr><tr><td valign="top" align="right">5&#160;&#160;</td><td>3) Dependent NPC: Gwen 8- (Normal; Useful noncombat position or skills)&#160;</td></tr></table>
<b>Disadvantage Points:</b> 180

<b>Base Points:</b> 200
<b>Experience Required:</b> 373
<b>Total Experience Available:</b> 373
<b>Experience Unspent:</b> 0

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Since Patriot was kind enough to provide the Hero Designer file of Stellar; I thought I'd post Stellar so everyone can see. I can't remember when I've last seen a "character" this cheesy. Wow. That's... special. :)

I'll have to try stuff like linking two powers to each other, in future. See if it gets past the GM. :D

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, if we want Stellar gone there seems to be an easy way...He has 15 BOD and no resistant defenses when his force field is down.

Lechstenstein patriot gets a high-powered sniper rifle (make it high tech supplied by Eurostar - say 8d6 RKA, beam effect, does no STUN). Tack on an OAF, and 4 charges, and that's a 30 point gun. Let's add some penalty levels vs. range from a scope, brace and set. He takes one shot while Stellar is at some public event. It does average BOD damage = 28 points. Stellar bleeds to death in two turns. Or it does a little over average and he's dead.

ooo...just noticed that Damage Reduction. [Sorry Patriot, but 40+ defenses AND 50% damage reduction? You get some of the blame here...] Maybe better to get the weapon through a connection with his alien hunters and have it kill him setting off his Black Hole effect. Or better yet, just make the black Hole kick in and he can't shut it off. What will his teammates do then? Note that he loses both his damage reduction and his force field thanks to that "lockout" - he's pretty easily taken down with that Black Hole in effect.

Not sure why he's allowed "END and damage only when power shuts off", but then I don't get why he would buy three charges when the RKA damage should finish him after the first anyway.

Hmmm...20 point mystery disad - could that be some way the aliens have of triggering his black hole effect (and Eurostar has figured out how to trigger it)?

Cheesy? Yup. Pretty dark? Well, for four colour. Stellar seems to be getting pretty dark anyway.

Would I do it? Probably not - but I don't have a player or character like that in my campaign. Maybe because I'd probably think of something like this...;)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Since Patriot was kind enough to provide the Hero Designer file of Stellar; I thought I'd post Stellar so everyone can see. I can't remember when I've last seen a "character" this cheesy.


I dunno, considering this character has years of experience and lots of points from that, I don't think this is all that cheesy except for the Black Hole thing, which is a bit absurd to me. But then again I'm pretty liberal on character design.

[Supreme Serpent]

I'm not getting into the morals of the situation, but having seen his sheet, I'm wondering HOW he took the whole floor away. His normal teleport choice in the VPP could not handle that - did he make some massive extra mass area affect usable vs others selective target T-port? With 90 active points? Maybe there's a way, I just don't see it just lookin' at it.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Supreme Serpent
I'm not getting into the morals of the situation, but having seen his sheet, I'm wondering HOW he took the whole floor away. His normal teleport choice in the VPP could not handle that - did he make some massive extra mass area affect usable vs others selective target T-port? With 90 active points? Maybe there's a way, I just don't see it just lookin' at it.
I'm too lazy to actual do it, but it was probably some 1" t-port with MegaScale, etc...
Based on what I've read of the player, etc... I wouldn't allow him a character with a VPP.
I already made some comments concerning his Disadvantages up above.

Did anyone else load him into HeroDesigner V2? I need to point Dan toward it. It got rather funky...

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Supreme Serpent
I'm not getting into the morals of the situation, but having seen his sheet, I'm wondering HOW he took the whole floor away. His normal teleport choice in the VPP could not handle that - did he make some massive extra mass area affect usable vs others selective target T-port? With 90 active points? Maybe there's a way, I just don't see it just lookin' at it. Stellar might have reconfigured the vpp to a long-range teleport with lots of extra mass that the ref ruled that for the port to affect his teammates who weren't in contact with him, he had to port the floor to "ride" the port to them - because they were all in contact with the floor. Apparently, however it worked, it had been used in this arrangement with similar effects before.

[Chuckg]

*looks at character sheet*

Great googly moogly, I've spent the whole damn weekend point-hacking for 750-point characters (very high-end game)(*) that ain't half as broken as that bad boy.

A 1200 Active Point power? I don't care *what* limitations are on it, that's just "Ow, ow, my [bleeping] brain, ow." territory.





(*) Basic premise of the game -- 'You are the world's mightiest superteam. You're the JLA-equivalent of this universe. You are the official Big Guns. When anybody needs a bail-out, your phone rings. When you need a bail-out, the planet's in trouble. Have fun."

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Chuckg
*looks at character sheet*

Great googly moogly, I've spent the whole damn weekend point-hacking for 750-point characters (very high-end game)(*) that ain't half as broken as that bad boy.

A 1200 Active Point power? I don't care *what* limitations are on it, that's just "Ow, ow, my [bleeping] brain, ow." territory.





(*) Basic premise of the game -- 'You are the world's mightiest superteam. You're the JLA-equivalent of this universe. You are the official Big Guns. When anybody needs a bail-out, your phone rings. When you need a bail-out, the planet's in trouble. Have fun." You should add to the Basic Premise - "You are the world's mightiest superteam. You're the JLA-equivalent..." minus Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, and Martian Manhunter. I think those characters probably go well over 1,000 points.:)

[Chuckg]

Actually, we have a Superman-analogue (STR 100, 40 PD/40 ED Resistant, 30" Flight, 5" MegaScale Flight) and a Green Lantern-analogue (10 PD/ED Resistant Hardened, 20 PD/ED Force Field 0 END, 25" Flight 0 END, and an 80-point Cosmic Power Pool with 0 END and LOS)...

... but no, they're not 100% as buff as the originals.

The Superman-analogue *IS* the big gun of the team, durn sure -- he can take a hit from a Space Nuke and actually walk away, even if he's limping like hell. But he has virtually no senses beyond the normal and only Mach 12 flight, even though he has truly awesome STR, defenses, and Presence attacks.

(Storyline... he's the champion/avatar of the ancient Valdorian sun god, set in eternal opposition to the Serpent, and awoken after a long period of hibernation to face the challenges of the modern age. In times past, he did the Nuada of the Silver Hand thing... sleep between crises, awaken to deal with them. Hence a consistent but not full-time presence on his part all down through ancient history)

The GL-analogue has 'Novice Hero' and virtually no skills... she's a teenager who just had the Power Cosmic(*) dumped upon her via one hell of a really involved and long set of circumstances...

As far as the rest of the team -- we've got a spatial manipulator/teleporter with a Multipower like Tesseract's, a DEX 35 SPD 7 martial artist who's also an MCPD MARS team member and equipped with some MARS gear and an experimental jetpack (Public ID -- like Teknique and the FBI, he's a superhero officially on the payroll), and a mentalist.




(*) Actually not the Power Cosmic, but she doesn't know that yet... in-game. Out-of-game I bloody well know exactly what's really going on, seeing as how I'm the one who wrote my character's origin story. :)

[Trebuchet]

The black hole power is certainly the most absurd thing about Stellar. In my campaign if he tried to use it he would die instantly. He doesn't have 1200 END, so he'd burn STUN as END. When he runs out of STUN he burns BODY as END. As I said: DEAD. As constructed the power is patently illegal. Cross-Linking powers is legit in some circumstances, but powers in an EC are already effectively Linked. And what's this "Notes: The Damage And endurance costs do not take effect till the power is shut off, or the character is ko'ed" crap? That's not a Limitation at all. Considering nothing will still be alive with a kilometer of this Power including the PC, where's the Limitation there?

The player is way out of line here, but most of the blame for this monstrosity can be laid at the GM's feet. Sorry, Patriot, but you've got only yourself to blame for this. He should never have been permitted as designed.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The black hole power is certainly the most absurd thing about Stellar. In my campaign if he tried to use it he would die instantly. He doesn't have 1200 END, so he'd burn STUN as END. When he runs out of STUN he burns BODY as END. As I said: DEAD. As constructed the power is patently illegal. Cross-Linking powers is legit in some circumstances, but powers in an EC are already effectively Linked. And what's this "Notes: The Damage And endurance costs do not take effect till the power is shut off, or the character is ko'ed" crap? That's not a Limitation at all. Considering nothing will still be alive with a kilometer of this Power including the PC, where's the Limitation there?

The player is way out of line here, but most of the blame for this monstrosity can be laid at the GM's feet. Sorry, Patriot, but you've got only yourself to blame for this. He should never have been permitted as designed. It wouldn't fly in my campaign but if all things are equal it's not ours to judge. Some groups like a free for all in character design.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The black hole power is certainly the most absurd thing about Stellar. In my campaign if he tried to use it he would die instantly.
Yeah, that power I just ignored. Wonder why 3 charges? He'd die anyway according to the writeup. I actually don't have any real problem with the character with the power. Though I'd just hand wave a bunch of it and say, if used, you die. Probably make it a 1 charge, lasts some amount of time.
Again not a power to give to the player though...

[Lupus]

Originally posted by lemming
Yeah, that power I just ignored. Wonder why 3 charges? He'd die anyway according to the writeup. I actually don't have any real problem with the character with the power. Though I'd just hand wave a bunch of it and say, if used, you die. Probably make it a 1 charge, lasts some amount of time.
Again not a power to give to the player though... Note that the RKA is NND (with no defence listed in the power writeup). I wonder if, despite taking the damage shield effect with no defence, Stellar has a defence that applies to the NND, thus rendering him immune.

Totally illegal, but it would be TERRIBLY cheesy. I wouldn't put it past a PC to do something like that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Lupus
Note that the RKA is NND (with no defence listed in the power writeup). I wonder if, despite taking the damage shield effect with no defence, Stellar has a defence that applies to the NND, thus rendering him immune.

He'd be in for a shock in my campaign - the writeup says he takes the damage with no defense, so that's exactly what happens.

But no way would I go with "only takes damage and spends END when he shuts the power down". 10x END means you spend the END if you want the power up, not when you take it down!

[lemming]

Originally posted by Lupus
Note that the RKA is NND (with no defence listed in the power writeup). I wonder if, despite taking the damage shield effect with no defence, Stellar has a defence that applies to the NND, thus rendering him immune.

Totally illegal, but it would be TERRIBLY cheesy. I wouldn't put it past a PC to do something like that.
You probably meant legal?

You're right! Damn. I should of noticed that. It would have to be out of his VPP though since his EC goes away due to the lockout.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
He'd be in for a shock in my campaign - the writeup says he takes the damage with no defense, so that's exactly what happens.

But no way would I go with "only takes damage and spends END when he shuts the power down". 10x END means you spend the END if you want the power up, not when you take it down! The END cost would kill him long before the power would. In fact he'd die before the power even reached full power. 1200 END means he'll be dead when it hits about 1/3 of maximum level.

I have no doubt he has the appropriate defense to protect him from the NND; this whole thing is clearly planned as an "all or nothing" attack anyway. BTW, if he were to use it 3 times it would destroy the Earth according to those HERO gamers who think Earth has only 100 BODY. (Since I'm not from that school, in my game if I were to permit such an absurd power it would just make a BIG crater.)

[Gary]

A few questions about Stellar.

1) There are 4 0 end powers in the EC, damage reduction physical, damage reduction energy, absorption, and life support. These require special GM permission, and the GM has the right to require the player to remove them from the EC at any time.

2) Why is there an OAF power in the EC? If that power is dependent on a focus, it obviously isn't linked enough with the rest of the natural powers to justify being in the same framework. Sounds like a cheesy attempt to save points.

3) Between the EC and VPP, Stellar is probably spending 18 end per phase maintaining all his powers. After 4 phases in combat, he's out of gas.

4) Why the heck would Stellar pay an additional 22 pts to allow a 1/2 phase change of his vpp? He has no skill roll with the pool, and it would be a -9 to any roll he may have to change powers that quickly. Unless you count the "power stunt" 11- which would have a net 2- roll to change powers.

5) I count 128 pts of skills, not 41. The total player cost would be 187+524+128+1 = 840. If the player really has only 753 pts to play with, he's engaged in some heavy deficit spending. This may work with the US government, but most GMs generally frown upon such things. :rolleyes:

6) Has his hunted by more powerful aliens ever shown up when the rest of the party is around? To be more powerful than Stellar, the aliens must be built on 1000+ pts which would nuke any lesser 350-450 pt characters hanging around.

7) You should watch characters with ECs and power defense carefully. The only restriction of a EC is that all powers get drained/suppressed when one is. Having power defense is an attempt to get around this restriction.

8) The last ditch attack. Other posters have said all that is needed about this.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
The END cost would kill him long before the power would. In fact he'd die before the power even reached full power. 1200 END means he'll be dead when it hits about 1/3 of maximum level.
Isn't that just your houserule though?
He would be in a definite coma though after burning ~2000 Stun. Might as well be dead.

[Patriot]

While I will take some of the blame,I am actually the 3rd GM running this character ( BUT I recently ran a white event where I tore the character down...he was worse)

The Black Hole effect is a last ditch power, And it will kill him in 1 second...not to mention the end burn(Special effect ( he turns into a singularity) and i honestly missed that dual-linking on the power

His hunted by Aliens have shown up (just about 6 weeks ago) to feel him out, they asked about team membership, and were given the base tour, them ofered to play tag in the danger room ( they now know the lay out of the base, the basis of everyones powers ect.) they are a trio of hunters from the planet that launched the sattelite that crashed and gave him his powers, they have come to reclaim the info that it held, that is unknowingly held in Stellars head....and they just want his head

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary
-snip-

2) Why is there an OAF power in the EC? If that power is dependent on a focus, it obviously isn't linked enough with the rest of the natural powers to justify being in the same framework. Sounds like a cheesy attempt to save points.

5) I count 128 pts of skills, not 41. The total player cost would be 187+524+128+1 = 840. If the player really has only 753 pts to play with, he's engaged in some heavy deficit spending. This may work with the US government, but most GMs generally frown upon such things. :rolleyes:



Dang, i should have seen #2, good point. I can imagine though it's "I need my elemental control to fuel it, but the focus is required to render it." Assuming draining the EC kills the power entirely and thus irrelevant as to focus, I could easily imagine allowing this actually as I think about it now. But it should be pretty clear the focus is an extra disad. I don't think it's NECESSARILY cheesy, as I can think of how many mages require foci to allow for certain manifestations of the powers they control. Depending on how it's written and played you could (but frankly probably wouldn't) have a tight SFX.

Re #5, it never occurred to me to check the math.

I do have a question - how was the character different at conception, if you have the info Patriot? As I've said earlier, I can more easily imagine the bigger cheese factor coming later, it happens with a lot of character concepts as they grow - and frankly it DOES mirror the source material well, for better and for worse.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by lemming
Isn't that just your houserule though?
He would be in a definite coma though after burning ~2000 Stun. Might as well be dead. I thought burning BODY for STUN after END runs out was an actual rule, but not in FREd apparently. It doesn't really matter; Stellar doesn't have enough END to even activate the Power in the first place. He'd knock himself out trying to activate it. And once he was unconscious, the power wouldn't keep working since it's not Persistent (And it couldn't be Persistent, since it uses END which is why he runs out of STUN. A nice Catch-22.)

It's not only an illegally constructed Power, but it's waste of 97 points since it doesn't even work. (Since we don't know the defenses against the NND portion of the "black hole" attack, it's entirely possible his own attack would kill him even if he retained consciousness somehow.)

The -1/2 Limitation on his Power Defense for being Linked to his FF would be worth only -1/4 since FF is a Constant Power.

What I don't understand is how the numbers from Hero Designer don't add up with Gary's numbers. Stellar clearly has way more than 41 points spent on Skills. HD does all the math for you. To me that suggests the distinct possibility that Stellar's player somehow hacked the HD file in order to cheat.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Patriot
While I will take some of the blame,I am actually the 3rd GM running this character ( BUT I recently ran a white event where I tore the character down...he was worse)My mistake. Then you can spread around the blame. :)

If the player is really determined to continue running Stellar, make him chop the character down until he's legal pointwise. He should be 723 points max: 350 CP + 373 XP. (Why does he have 180 points of Disads? Does your campaign have no limit on Disad points?) And disallow some of the cheesier power constructions he used. I'd make him dump the Power Defense since he has so many Linked Powers.

Why not make the power reduction/rebuild part of a scenario? Maybe his alien Hunteds steal some of his power?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Patriot
His hunted by Aliens have shown up (just about 6 weeks ago) to feel him out, they asked about team membership, and were given the base tour, them ofered to play tag in the danger room ( they now know the lay out of the base, the basis of everyones powers ect.) they are a trio of hunters from the planet that launched the sattelite that crashed and gave him his powers, they have come to reclaim the info that it held, that is unknowingly held in Stellars head....and they just want his head

Ummm...that really doesn't sound like "harshly punishing" Stellar to me, so I would suggest they haven't actually "shown up" yet. Why don't they take his head?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Since we don't know the defenses against the NND portion of the "black hole" attack, it's entirely possible his own attack would kill him even if he retained consciousness somehow.


The limitation says "with no defense". Given the other issues, I can see the player thinking he can have the NND defense and be safe, but "with no defense" means exactly that to me - roll and take that much BOD.

But he can't activate it anyway, so it's a moot point.

[lemming]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
I thought burning BODY for STUN after END runs out was an actual rule, but not in FREd apparently.
I've seen versions proposed in various house rules since 1983ish.


What I don't understand is how the numbers from Hero Designer don't add up with Gary's numbers. Stellar clearly has way more than 41 points spent on Skills. HD does all the math for you. To me that suggests the distinct possibility that Stellar's player somehow hacked the HD file in order to cheat.
Well, it's a strange construction. When I loaded into V2 HD, it subtracted ~700 points. There's a package deal with Team Vangaard and something around there is throwing the math off.
That reminds me, I was going to point Dan at that.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by lemming
I've seen versions proposed in various house rules since 1983ish.

Well, it's a strange construction. When I loaded into V2 HD, it subtracted ~700 points. There's a package deal with Team Vangaard and something around there is throwing the math off.
That reminds me, I was going to point Dan at that.

Heh, Dan may just say if you abuse HD enough it stops responding, like a jilted lover. :D

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil
Heh, Dan may just say if you abuse HD enough it stops responding, like a jilted lover. :D

Looks like Stellar beat HD into submission.

[Patriot]

His hunted is feeling him out first
He has no Idea they are his hunteds

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Ummm...that really doesn't sound like "harshly punishing" Stellar to me, so I would suggest they haven't actually "shown up" yet. Why don't they take his head? Hunteds "show up" according to the frequency of the disadvantage but it is not required for the hunted to kill, attack, etc. everytime they show up. What Patriot did actually sounds much more interesting than a typical hunted encounter.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Agent X
Hunteds "show up" according to the frequency of the disadvantage but it is not required for the hunted to kill, attack, etc. everytime they show up. What Patriot did actually sounds much more interesting than a typical hunted encounter.

More interesting role playing? Absolutely. Now, tell me how it was disadvantageous to Stellar.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
More interesting role playing? Absolutely. Now, tell me how it was disadvantageous to Stellar. Ah, you are from that school of thought. It's disadvantageous to Stellar because now the "bad guys" have staked out their target and his haunts. That means they can prepare. I think you are getting caught up in a temporal issue of when the disadvantage is demonstrated through a climactic scene. If you think hunteds mean the bad guy has to attack you or a dnpc everytime an 8 or less is rolled, I wouldn't bother playing with a hunted in your game. I would rather you use your imagination with the hunteds.

[Stray Cat]

Originally posted by Patriot
Recently In my Champions Game


(keep in mind he is a cook)


Any Input? What would you do different? Would you run this?
Are you kiddin? Stellar and the team were in mortal danger. After seein Under Seige, I'll never think of cooks in the same way! :D

Cat

[Gary]

Here's what I would suggest with Stellar:

1) Balance the character's points! Remove enough points to get to 723, or 753 if your campaign allows unlimited disads.

2) Remove the DR, absorption, and Life support from the EC. This costs 35 additional points.

3) Force the player to buy off the OAF on his flight. This costs 16 pts.

4) Remove either the power defense, or the EC framework. This saves 7 pts if the character removes the power defense.

5) Remove the last ditch power. I can't believe any GM would ever allow it. This saves 97 pts.

6) Enforce the fact that he can't change his VPP in combat since he doesn't have a skill roll with the VPP. He could either buy a 24- VPP skill roll for 29 pts, or he could save 22 pts by removing the 1/2 phase to change on the control cost.

7) Keep track of End costs! With the amount of end he spends per phase, I can't believe this issue hasn't bitten him before.

8) If he doesn't want to chop enough points to be in balance, give him 1d6 unluck for every 5 pts deficit. Currently, he's 87 pts in deficit so he'd have 18d6 unluck. :eek:

All this is just my opinion, but I'm sure most of the posters here wouldn't allow this character without massive changes.

[gewing]

Well, you could have him get kidnapped to hell and tormented for an EON in Relative time, then finally escape a better man...

Or an insane lunatic, which appears to be what he was "Tending towards"

I come down somewhere in between. Throwing the book at him is appropriate. Negligent Homicide is still homicide. I'll read more before I comment further.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I see a couple of options:

1. Stellar has disappeared. When the player is ready to rejoin, he can decide whether he wants Stellar to stay "disappeared" or run some resolution scenario. Then you can decide whether Stellar was in hiding, or some other plot was going on.

2. Team Vanguard is ready to deal with the Stellar problem when something more urgent demands their attention. That "something" keeps them occupied until Stellar's player is ready to come back.

#2 works best if you know how long the player will be missing and have something that can happen in the meantime (can we say "fill-in story"? "Annual"?)

Otherwise, just "disappear" him and give some thought to what may have happened. Surely in his long career, he's met with someone who coul;d remove him from the campaign scene, whether for noble or sinister reasons. Maybe he's kidnapped by aliens/ otherdimensionals/time travellers for whatever reason ("Only his power can save us in our time of need"; "access his teleportation powers to aid in the conquest of the Universe"; "we need another Gladiator for the games - here's a likely target").

EDIT: Whether you have an idea why he disappeared or not, you might just find player speculation and theorizing provides you with a better plot anyway! Then they can "discover" that their speculation was correct and feel great pride in their clever deduction of your plot! :D

[Agent X]

Since Stellar is taking a break I really think this is a good time to retcon. Blame the deaths on Eurostar somehow. Have Stellar disappear because the Aliens captured him. Let the team be confounded with his disappearance and do some other things. Eventually have them go on a space epic to rescue Stellar. When they find him, he has somehow been altered by the aliens so that the character is placed down where the other characters are in points.

Or simply let Stellar fade into a memory. When the player comes back tell him to write up a new character.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Gary
All this is just my opinion, but I'm sure most of the posters here wouldn't allow this character without massive changes. You should listen to Mojo Jojo, because Mojo Jojo has a good plan and this plan is Mojo Jojo's and it is a good plan so you should listen! ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by Agent X
Ah, you are from that school of thought. It's disadvantageous to Stellar because now the "bad guys" have staked out their target and his haunts. That means they can prepare. I think you are getting caught up in a temporal issue of when the disadvantage is demonstrated through a climactic scene. If you think hunteds mean the bad guy has to attack you or a dnpc everytime an 8 or less is rolled, I wouldn't bother playing with a hunted in your game. I would rather you use your imagination with the hunteds.

Actually, I frequently let the roll mean "behind the scenes, Dr. Apocalypse advances his plot against Our Heroes". However, I would expect to have had a confrontation with an "Arch-nemesis" before accumulating over 300 experience points, as Stellar has done. How many game years without the Hunted doing more than poking out their noses to look around?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by gewing
Well, you could have him get kidnapped to hell and tormented for an EON in Relative time, then finally escape a better man...

Or an insane lunatic, which appears to be what he was "Tending towards"

I come down somewhere in between. Throwing the book at him is appropriate. Negligent Homicide is still homicide. I'll read more before I comment further.

As I read this, the name "Nebula" pops in my head. Why do you suppose that might be? :confused:

Seriously, villain with cheesy power takes out hero with numerous cheesy powers seems a valid solution.

[acowie]

But I'm just wondering how that whole black hole power came about.
Did Stellar have it as a starting character? Somewhat doubtful.

Or did he save up for, what, two years play?
"Have you decided what you want to spend your XP on yet - wow, it's got to be nearly a hundred points. This is going to be some kind of radiation accident! What are you going for - Strength, Dex, a VPP you can actually use :-)?"
"OK, here it is - Stellar can now turn into a singularity. OK, so he dies, but if he gets brought back, he can do it again! But after that he can only do it once more. What do you think?"
"Gosh, it's kind of game breaking, isn't it?"
"Well, I'll only use it if I really need to. Like if someone's threatening a cook or something."

Apologies to Patriot and the anonymous player involved...

[Mentor]

Originally posted by Gary
Here's what I would suggest with Stellar:

1) Balance the character's points! Remove enough points to get to 723, or 753 if your campaign allows unlimited disads.

2) Remove the DR, absorption, and Life support from the EC. This costs 35 additional points.

3) Force the player to buy off the OAF on his flight. This costs 16 pts.

4) Remove either the power defense, or the EC framework. This saves 7 pts if the character removes the power defense.

5) Remove the last ditch power. I can't believe any GM would ever allow it. This saves 97 pts.

6) Enforce the fact that he can't change his VPP in combat since he doesn't have a skill roll with the VPP. He could either buy a 24- VPP skill roll for 29 pts, or he could save 22 pts by removing the 1/2 phase to change on the control cost.

7) Keep track of End costs! With the amount of end he spends per phase, I can't believe this issue hasn't bitten him before.

8) If he doesn't want to chop enough points to be in balance, give him 1d6 unluck for every 5 pts deficit. Currently, he's 87 pts in deficit so he'd have 18d6 unluck. :eek:

All this is just my opinion, but I'm sure most of the posters here wouldn't allow this character without massive changes. Just as an aside, Trebuchet and I were discussing this thread over lunch one day and hoped a real number cruncher would weigh in (as we were too lazy to do the math). At the time we both agreed that Gary would be just the right guy and...Ta Daaaaa. Good job, Gary.

[lemming]

Originally posted by acowie
Or did he save up for, what, two years play?
I'd say the rest of your points are valid, but depending on the gaming enviroment he could of gotten that many points in a week of play...

(Back in college, during Thanksgiving break, one character got ~100 points. His player didn't GM and wound up playing the same player.... Weeeeee...)

This goofy side track brought to you by six cups of coffee & no food!

[Vondy]

My team would have hit that place like a tornado. Eurostar is on their acceptable to bring in dead if alive isn't possible list, and they have a long history. In fact, in my campaign, the team finally got the drop on Eurostar and took them down with extreme force (and with shocking speed I might add). 2 memberw of Eurostar were killed, 2 almost died on the way to medical treatment, and all of the ones who lived were put in a highly secure classified detainment facility outside the official territory of the US where GTMO Bay style rules apply (in permanent hotsleep (well, coldsleep, really).

Eurostar is a national security threat who put millions in harms way with their schemes (biowarfare, etc). Their escape isn't acceptable under any circumstances. A cook, and even a teammate, are acceptable losses. Its necessary to minimize collateral casualties, but letting Eurostar go to avoid them is, in my book, a decision of dubious morality, which is why I don't read comic books. I find comic book ethics banal.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by D-Man
My team would have hit that place like a tornado. Eurostar is on their acceptable to bring in dead if alive isn't possible list, and they have a long history. In fact, in my campaign, the team finally got the drop on Eurostar and took them down with extreme force (and with shocking speed I might add). 2 memberw of Eurostar were killed, 2 almost died on the way to medical treatment, and all of the ones who lived were put in a highly secure classified detainment facility outside the official territory of the US where GTMO Bay style rules apply (in permanent hotsleep (well, coldsleep, really).

Eurostar is a national security threat who put millions in harms way with their schemes (biowarfare, etc). Their escape isn't acceptable under any circumstances. A cook, and even a teammate, are acceptable losses. Its necessary to minimize collateral casualties, but letting Eurostar go to avoid them is, in my book, a decision of dubious morality, which is why I don't read comic books. I find comic book ethics banal.

I stumbled across this thread as part of an unrelated search, and I just have to say that NO ONE EVER gets to complain about one of my characters again. ;) Ugh.

BTW, D-Man, comicbook ethics often are banal. Good call.

[Pattern Ghost]

I agree on the banality of comic book ethics, but if a group agrees to play within a certain genre (or subgenre), they're obligated to abide by the conventions of that genre.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
I agree on the banality of comic book ethics, but if a group agrees to play within a certain genre (or subgenre), they're obligated to abide by the conventions of that genre. I concur. Genre conventions are not strictly a construct of comic books or film. Real life cops and soldiers have standards they are supposed to adhere to as well. They may get more latitude than John Q. Citizen within their own purvue, but if they cross those conventions they can find themselves in a world of trouble with the authorities. Cops don't get to extort money or commit murder, soldiers don't get to rape and pillage. That bad apples occasionally do so doesn't mean the establishment as a whole tolerates such behavior.

Bottom line: Supers who are four-color don't get to act like characters from graphic novels without drawing whole a lot of grief.

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Bottom line: Supers who are four-color don't get to act like characters from graphic novels without drawing whole a lot of grief.

I'd go that one step further and say "Supers who are four-color don't get to act like characters from graphic novels."

[Solomon]

Originally posted by D-Man
Eurostar is a national security threat who put millions in harms way with their schemes (biowarfare, etc). Their escape isn't acceptable under any circumstances. A cook, and even a teammate, are acceptable losses. Its necessary to minimize collateral casualties, but letting Eurostar go to avoid them is, in my book, a decision of dubious morality, which is why I don't read comic books. I find comic book ethics banal.

I do agree comic book ethics are banal. So what? :p
I live by real-word, shades-of-gray non-banal ethics seven days a week... I only get to live by plain old simple and FUN comic book ethics four measly hours a week. What's wrong with that? ;)

Being a hero is fun, so... be a HERO! :cool:

[Kristopher]

How many times must the naive ethics of 4C superheroes end up costing a lot more in life and property and suffering in the long run?

[Tae Kwon Dan]

Originally posted by Kristopher
How many times must the naive ethics of 4C superheroes end up costing a lot more in life and property and suffering in the long run?

How long is the print run of the book? :p

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher
How many times must the naive ethics of 4C superheroes end up costing a lot more in life and property and suffering in the long run?

Of course, to be fair, in a true 4C setting, there is no or little "life and...suffering" cost, at least not substantive, or, rather, at least not as the 4C setting got away from pulp. There is property loss, but that usually is rectified.

The difference now is there is this mix of four color and real world; to the degree real world stuff comes in, that is the degree to which certain 4c ethics will not work.

[Trebuchet]

Four-color is a convention. It's not a code of ethics or a subset of physics in a superhero world. It's distinctly and deliberately non-realistic. Face it, in a real world where costumed characters have energy blasts that can hole tanks and strength enough to throw a freighter, casualties would be common. The low (practically non-existent, in fact) mortality rate in such worlds is more unrealistic than the superpowers themselves. There are other aspects of 4C, such as friends and loved ones never recognizing the hero despite the lame disguise provided by a half-mask or glasses. But the non-lethality I believe is the most important aspect of 4C.

As long as players and GMs acknowledge that 4C is the central reality of their game universe it will work out. Once either party starts to fudge the 4C convention the system will break down. From that point on I suspect devolution (or evolution) to Iron Age or beyond is inevitable.