Is Hero still your "go-to" rpg system?

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

D&D gets the players because they have the money for lots of adds, not because of the value of the game.

 

Having popular and famous people play the game in streaming helped a lot, too.  So do shows like Stranger Things that feature it.

[Gauntlet]

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Having popular and famous people play the game in streaming helped a lot, too.  So do shows like Stranger Things that feature it.

 

A lot of that is part of their advertising. They pay producers to put themselves in their shows and tell actors to tell people that they play their game. I am not saying that they only play because they are paid to, but one of the big reason they let people know that they are playing it is because they are paid to do so.

[Ninja-Bear]

Speaking of name recognition, I’ve been asked by people who never played an RPG ask me when I mention that I do, you D&D? Even without their advertisement department, D&D is so ubiquitous, non-gamers associate D&D with RPGs.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Its more than brand connection like Kleenex, its just the only RPG they know exists.  Its like Reggae, if you ask most people, to the extent they have even heard of the music, they only know Bob Marley.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Christopher R Taylor

[Rich McGee]

It's the exact same situation as you see in the miniature gaming end of gaming.  Everyone (including many non-gamer folk) has heard of Games Workshop/Warhammer.  A disturbing number of minis gamers have never played a game from another company, and few don't even know there are other companies.  They're the biggest fish in a smallish pond, same as WotC/D&D is.

 

The fact D&D is far more than what either WotC or TSR publish is perhaps the most noteworthy difference between the two situations.  Even before the OGL there were hundreds of unlicensed 3PP things made for D&D, which is part of the reason TSR stands for They Sue Regularly for older grognards.  Since the OGL, that number's jumped by an order of magnitude or two and shows no sign of slowing even as 5e staggers from WotC's PR disasters of the last few years.  I can think of over a dozen OGL retro-clones of various editions of D&D, and hundreds more indie games using the license for all it's worth - and not just for fantasy, either.  A lot of the comments on this thread are talking as though 5e is D&D, when it's just a part of a much larger whole that's largely escaped the control of Hasbro/WotC. 

 

By comparison Warhammer is much more fully controlled by GW, even though it faces real competition from deliberately compatible miniatures ranges that gets worse every day as improving 3D printing tech is altering the face of minis gaming forever.  Closest parallel to that for RPGs is the increasing trend toward online play rather than face-to-face, something that got ahuge boost from teh pandemic.        

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Rich McGee

[Christopher R Taylor]

My brother was a big Chronopia fan, they had some great minis but I don't know if its even around any more

[Rich McGee]

53 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

My brother was a big Chronopia fan, they had some great minis but I don't know if its even around any more

Long gone, I'm afraid, and Heartbreaker is out of business for 30-ish years now.  Chronopia's close cousin Warzone has seen several revival attempts by new license holders with very different rules (including one with prepaint figs IIRC) but they've all flopped in short order.

 

I used to have a fair-sized Stygian force myself, and dabbled in Blackbloods.  The sculpts were good, imaginative examples of the cheerfully chunky style that was so common in the 90s.   

[Lord Liaden]

On 12/1/2023 at 12:20 PM, Gauntlet said:

 

They in some respects have gotten themselves to be the "Cool Thing To Do".

 

And isn't that ironic.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Honestly the pop culture acceptance and even embracing of geek culture annoys me.  It was our thing, our special thing we got to do and weren't bothered by anyone else.  We had our own language, we had our own references.  Now that Iron Man is cool, he's not... cool, if you know what I mean.  Losing our niche makes it less special and now we get it cheapened by modern advertising etc.

[Alcamtar]

I feel that. We can't even have our own take or spin on things, because there are a thousand pop culture police who think it has to be a certain way, who are invested in it. Feels like a church sometimes.

 

I honestly felt that way with 5th edition, when Steve was dispensing advice and rules questions on the forums. I mean it was kind of nice, but once there's an official written word and an official ruling on everything, and someone you can ask... it kind of takes a lot of the creativity out of it.

 

As a python programmer I find that too. Programming is a lot of fun when you can roll your own solutions, but when there's one true way, and mechanical tools to enforce that one true way, and a legion of fanatical rage-nerds who will criticize anything that they don't consider a best practice, it sucks a lot of the joy out of it. Even when the language has official support for a feature, I can't use it because "not supposed to".

 

The most fun part of a geeky hobby is doing your own investigation, acquiring your own learning, developing your own interpretation. You can't really do that with a pop culture juggernaut, and the more complete the canonical corpus is, the less freedom there is.

 

I guess you were talking more about the whole subculture thing. The social side of it was never that big for me, because I knew relatively few people who were into gaming and I always wished there were more, or that people around me were more accepting of it than I perceived them to be.

 

I guess the proverb is true: be careful what you wish for!

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

And isn't that ironic.

 

 

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

On 12/3/2023 at 2:50 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Honestly the pop culture acceptance and even embracing of geek culture annoys me.  It was our thing, our special thing we got to do and weren't bothered by anyone else.  We had our own language, we had our own references.  Now that Iron Man is cool, he's not... cool, if you know what I mean.  Losing our niche makes it less special and now we get it cheapened by modern advertising etc.

 

I find myself with less sympathy for those pining for the days when "our thing" was special and pointed at and laughed at.  I think I am happier with more people who are comfortable with superhero and gaming references, not least the appearance of NPC as a concept in random social media conversations.  I think there is more stuff for me to cherry pick and live off than in the old days when everything was specialist, expensive or home-made.

 

Obviously there are the issues like complete canon and I take great pleasure in educating newbies in the tyrrany of continuity.  I have been there, pined for completeness and then come out the other side, looking for complete stories that can exist.  I love asking those saying that batman should kill the Joker whether they would be happy knowing there would never be another joker story?  Some are but the majority want more stuff to watch and read.  Joker's continued existence is purely by commercial demand, not from any inherent flaw in Batman's priniciples or society as a whole. 

 

I want lots of stories, I want good complex series.  I am content for those stories to be coherent within themselves and owe no continuity to previous stories or to limit future stories by what they reveal.  I guess that is why I drifted into almost exclusively reading old stuff and Elseworlds stories.

 

However, the more people there are involved and interested, the more people there are who are likely to create in this space and, even if 90% of that is dross, it is still likely to be more than I had growing up.

 

Doc

[Rich McGee]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:41 AM, Doc Democracy said:

I love asking those saying that batman should kill the Joker whether they would be happy knowing there would never be another joker story?

Except that the story Joker dies in doesn't need to be the last Joker story.  He's died lots of times, arguably including his first appearance.  Doesn't stick, and every death makes Joker that much less interesting of a character.  Even if got yourself an immortal all-powerful chief editor who could declare that Joker is dead as X date in the continuity and never, ever comes back to life or gets retconned into being, there's still room for an infinity of stories set in the past that we just never heard about before, as well as Joker-From-The-Past time-travelling past his expiration date for a story arc or an alt-timeline Joker story or some nutter claiming the legacy or cloning a replacement.

 

There's no hope of ever truly being rid of the character while he still sells.

[Doc Democracy]

10 minutes ago, Rich McGee said:

Except that the story Joker dies in doesn't need to be the last Joker story. 

 

Absolutely.  However, this is not a line those that run with the "good guys are stupid" line would use.  They rationalise that Batman would do more good by killing the Joker.  I say writers want the Joker alive for more stories, you say the same, even to the point of resurrecting the Joker.  Batman killing the Joker only muddies his status as a hero, it would have no impact on whether he killed again, writers want iconic bad guys.

[Duke Bushido]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:41 AM, Doc Democracy said:

.  I love asking those saying that batman should kill the Joker whether they would be happy knowing there would never be another joker story? 

 

 

OH MY _GOD_, YES!

 

 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYWSYESYES

 

YES, YES, _YES_!

 

Sign me _straight_ the #\'( up, _PLEASE_!

 

 

[Rich McGee]

2 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I say writers want the Joker alive for more stories, you say the same...

That doesn't mean I approve of it at all.  Nothing would make me happier than never seeing another Joker story in any form.  He's a grotesque and deeply distasteful exploitation of the whole subject of mental illness as well as a just generally negative cultural influence the whole world would be better off without.  Don't mistake my acceptance of the inevitability of Joker remaining part of Batman forever with any kind of fondness for the character.  I can't get rid of him so I have to tolerate him instead, but I sure won't give DC a penny for perpetuating the ugly stereotypes behind the character - something many of Batman's other rogues and Bruce himself are also guilty of to one degree or another.

 

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

OH MY _GOD_, YES!

My preferred "Death of the Joker" doesn't involve Batman at all.  Instead, a large conspiracy of surviving victims and relatives/friends of those killed bribe the guards at Arkham one night when they know Joker is present, drag all the resident mass-murderer supervillains (most of whom lack actual powers - Croc gets shot to death with an elephant gun in his cell and his body set ablaze to be sure) out to the yard, and kill them firing-squad style.  No speeches, no mock trials, no mercy, no regrets, no delay for a last-minute save.  If Batman appears at all it's in the aftermath, where the crowd has peacefully surrendered to the GCPD and are being taken into custody.  The rest of the story is courtroom drama addressing the real costs of vigilantism, the failures of the justice system in Gotham that allowed so many murders to be committed by the same few criminal lunatics over the years, and the question of how you deal with a large body of otherwise innocent citizens who have accepted the legal risks of executing so many killers the state could not find a solution for.  They all had undeniable and apparently untreatable mental illnesses, but at what point does society say that isn't adequate justification for keeping them alive to kill again?  The "Arkham Hundred" are responsible for a dreadful crime and freely admit it, but how much of the city...the world, even...see them as heroes for doing what they did?

 

Going beyond that, the Batman book has just lost many of it oldest, most hackneyed, most problematic villains in one fell swoop and Bruce's massive long term failure as a so-called protector of Gotham gets some light thrown on it.  The new creative team has an unrivaled opportunity to do something different with the franchise, and maybe Bruce finally accepts that the Batman isn't working as intended and arguably never has.  Some of his own villains are still out there - Arkham never has all of them at once - and some of the conspiracy may be looking to finish them too, what's Bruce do about that?  The power vacuum in Gotham will be filled unless the GCPD can react quickly and decisively, does Bruce help with that?  Do other heroes (and antiheroes) move in to help clean up Gotham for good, with or without Bruce's permission?  Is there a national or even worldwide reassessment of superheroes (who are almost all ultimately vigilantes) resulting from this, and how does Bruce deal with that and reactions from other heroes?  Smart editors and creatives could milk this for decades before it starts getting old, and in the meantime DC can still put out pre-Arkham Massacre retrospective books and Elseworlds and the like to keep money coming in from those who won't move on.

 

And DC being DC, there will eventually be yet another Crisis and they can decide what to erase from the new canon and what to keep.  If the post-Massacre creators have done their job well it'll stay.  If they didn't, it'll be sacrificed in the name of profits and that grinning clown will be back.

[tkdguy]

I'd be happy to run HERO again, assuming my players aren't expecting a superhero game. I'll do fantasy or scifi instead.

[Doc Democracy]

10 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

 

OH MY _GOD_, YES!

 

 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYWSYESYES

 

YES, YES, _YES_!

 

Sign me _straight_ the #\'( up, _PLEASE_!

 

 

 

I dismiss this response as Duke has never been a massive comics fan anyway - losing a great villain would be of no value to him!! 

 

😄

9 hours ago, Rich McGee said:

That doesn't mean I approve of it at all.  Nothing would make me happier than never seeing another Joker story in any form.  He's a grotesque and deeply distasteful exploitation of the whole subject of mental illness as well as a just generally negative cultural influence the whole world would be better off without.  Don't mistake my acceptance of the inevitability of Joker remaining part of Batman forever with any kind of fondness for the character.  I can't get rid of him so I have to tolerate him instead, but I sure won't give DC a penny for perpetuating the ugly stereotypes behind the character - something many of Batman's other rogues and Bruce himself are also guilty of to one degree or another.

 This is a more literate argument against Joker stories.  I think I still disagree - am not sure the Joker is presented as mentally ill - he is, like the heroes, an archetype of chaos.  And comic books stories are all about archetypes - something the evil Superman trope fails to accept.

9 hours ago, Rich McGee said:

the failures of the justice system in Gotham that allowed so many murders to be committed by the same few criminal lunatics over the years,

 

This, to me, is a symptom of written comic books rather than anything to do with criminal justice in Gotham.

9 hours ago, Rich McGee said:

Is there a national or even worldwide reassessment of superheroes (who are almost all ultimately vigilantes) resulting from this, and how does Bruce deal with that and reactions from other heroes?

 

An argument against superhero comics really.  I think I would miss them. 

[Doc Democracy]

9 hours ago, tkdguy said:

I'd be happy to run HERO again, assuming my players aren't expecting a superhero game. I'll do fantasy or scifi instead.

 

Probably a common thing - superhero games are difficult to run and difficult to get players properly bought into because they are different from what people expect.  Cinematic mythic stories where the powers are emblems of the archetypes represented - not sure HERO actually captures this aspect of superheroes. 

 

I think HERO is best in delivering the Indiana Jones and other pulp larger than life adventures where the supernatural mixes with the mundane....

Doc

[Rich McGee]

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

...am not sure the Joker is presented as mentally ill...

When Joker actually deigns to remain imprisoned, it's in a mental asylum for the criminally insane - the place isn't called Arkham Prison, although once in a while a particularly bad creative portrays it like one.  Harley Quinn was supposedly treating his illness, or at least studying it depending on which version of her origin you consume.  His status as not being legally competent to stand trial has consistently been his sole legal defense, to the point where it's rarely even mentioned any more.  He's regularly called a madman, a lunatic, insane, and almost every other ugly word for the mentally ill, often decades past where older terms fell out of use.  Not too long ago DC decided to have him cut the skin of his own face off.  What does it take to make you sure, if all that doesn't do it?

 

He's constantly present as mentally ill...and it's almost always done very, very badly.  So badly that you somehow have your doubts about it.  The incompetence and insensitivity of most writers doesn't change the intent.

[Ninja-Bear]

11 hours ago, tkdguy said:

I'd be happy to run HERO again, assuming my players aren't expecting a superhero game. I'll do fantasy or scifi instead.

Burnt out on Supers? I might run a Solo game for myself at some point. Just to see if a Sandbox would work in a Supers game.

Edited January 5 by Ninja-Bear

[carmachu]

8 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Burnt out on Supers? I might run a Solo game for myself at some point. Just to see if a Sandbox would work in a Supers game.

It can but you need a larger sandbox. My current game is multiple realties invaded earth to steal its energy, earth itself used it to fight back and created supers. Different countries/continents have different realties. A “governing” body coordinates efforts and the PCs can go anywhere.

 

however my players are in reactive mode rather then proactive mode. So I’m about to force the issue

Edited January 5 by carmachu

[Duke Bushido]

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

I dismiss this response as Duke has never been a massive comics fan anyway

 

The best kind of correct, Sir! 

writer's 

 

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

- losing a great villain would be of no value to him!! 

 

This is where we differ.  I don't think he's a great villain.  "Oh look; sociopath mass murdered goes on a killing spree!

 

 

Again."

 

And Again

 

And Again

 

And Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and againandagainandagainandagain....

 

At this point, it seems,mathematically impossible for any citizen in Gotham _not_ to have lost someone to the Joker.  Frankly, I have to feel (and it could be where I live: a place where people _do_ periodically take shots at criminals on the courthouse steps-- to the point that we built an entirely new courthouse specifically to create a tunnel from the jail to the inside of the courthouse.  No; seriously.  Google courthouse, Lyons, GA if you don't believe me) that Rich's idea of someone deciding enough is enough makes _way_ more sense to me than what routinely happens:

 

"I am Batman.  I am better than them.  I don't kill.  I just let the same group of mass murderers kill over and over and over again.  Eventually (and it's been what?  Seventy years?) people are going to start (whether correctly or not) that the problem actually _does_ seem kind of like it might be Batman himself....

 

So what makes the joker an especially good or well-developed character?  A deformity?  A chemically-induced change to his DNA that prevents his skin from healing a to a normal skin tone and keeps his hair green?  The fact that he kills people- even lots of them- for no particular reason makes him zero different from the majority of Batman villains.

 

The fact that he kills Robins?   Well the writers are the only thing stopping anyone else from doing it: I am sure a quick perusal of Batman comics will result in a couple of dozen villains who would _jump_ at the chance to kill a Robin or two (especially that one from LEGO Batman.  That Joker, too).  Only the writers stop them, keeping Robin just out of their murderous reach.

 

So what else might be cool?  The random "deep" commentary that sounds like it was written by a fourteen-year-old Edgelord?  "Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?  Wanna know how I got these scars?"  Dude, no.  I have to pay rent to amd work for him!  I sure as heck ain't gonna dance with him!  And the only thing I have _ever_ wondered about those scars is why the director _gave_ them to you, seeing as how there is, as far as I know, no canonical reference to them _ever_.  (That's important to the Batman guys, right? Canon?)

 

 

Actually, that fourteen-year-old edgelord thing seems to apply to a disproportionately large number of Batman villains: "you merely adopted the darkness.  I was _moulded_ by it...."  Ich.

 

Still, there is the ever-popular, ever-bland Joker.  What is it?  What's the appeal?  Must be the purple suits; it can't be the Anakin-ized version of him from that Pheonix movie, and it certainly wasn't the  nineteen-year-old gangbanger version of him from that God-awful Doom Patrol movie.  Actually, I am pretty sure that was a God-awful version of everyone in that movie except possibly the Will Smith character, who at least got almost  four minutes of character development.

 

The Joker remains, in my own useless opinion (remember that Doc _is_ correct: the tiny bit I know about comics comes from these boards, period), an unoriginal, uninspired generic mass murderer with a Schtick that has worn really, really, thin, but since the absolute inviolable "must" of comics-  the part that keeps the fans comfortable- is absolute adherence to the status quo.  If the status quo goes to far adrift, boom!  Reboot.  While they all _talk_ about how great seeing new directions and new ideas and broad expansions of serrings and characters, but what they _buy_ is the same stories, the same settings, the same characters over and over; it is what they want.  It is their comfort zone.

 

And _this_ is the secret to the Joker's staying power:  they liked him years ago; they are comfortable liking him now.  Plus, he can be exactly what they want him to be: he is so blank-- so absolutely generic mass murderer _and_ generic slasher flick villain that the fans can easily drop whatever motivation, whatever head canon they hold, on top of him and there is nothing to counter it.  It fits because absolutely anything will.  The bumbling comical buffoon played by Ceaser Romero, an Hanibal Lector-esque manipulative psychopath, the self-amused Jack Nicholson version, the "tortured soul" character that Ledger played-  even that Leto take--  they _all_ fit.

 

That is the second-most hateable thing about the Joker: there is _nothing_ there that is uniquely Joker except for his appearance, and if a purple suit was a personality I would have been Prom King instead of helping my date keep her face hidden all night.

 

The most hateable thing?  His _persistence_.  I don't mean that as a personal trait; I mean his constant existing, being in the background and the foreground, and being essentially unstoppable, unreasonable, always one step ahead _forever_.

 

I think it is important to note that it isnt just Batman, and it isn't just me. 

 

My wife, for whatever reason, like pretty much _every_ "and here is MI gimmick" crime show- from Bones to Almost Paradise to the Mentalist--  every stinking one of them.  Fortunately, I don't watch a lot of TV, so I don't have to pay any attention to it.

 

I have noticed a trend in all of them, though.  At some point- if not by Season 3, then during Season 3, there is some uncatchable Mastermind (and a disproportionately large number of them are named "Jack," for.... reasons?).  Sometimes he is invented on the spot and will stay until the show runs itself into the ground; sometimes he is retconned in ("this case is so much like that case we had from years ago" or some such thing).  Either way, references- maybe even actual crimes or other misdeeds-  but they never, ever quite manage to catch him or stop him or in anyway end his reign of terror......

 

And an interesting thing happens-  it _always_ happens; it happens so much that I can't figure out why they still try it!  But What happens is people stop watching.  Some folks like a two-parter; some like a three-parter.  _Some_ like to carry on the adventure for a whole season.  You can actually see it-- or you _could_, back when people still published their ratings.  You could see when the cliffhanger had enough and stopped watching.  You could see when the multi-part and full-season people stopped watching.

 

And within a season or two, the show died.

 

Why?  Because _no one_ likes it.  What is there to like in an infinite evil that our staunch and beloved heroes are always, always powerless to stop.  Of course, it could be that the unstoppable monster is always the same cookie-cutter super-intelligent monster, but absolutely  without a hint of uniqueness or originality.

 

They are all the Joker.  And people _outside_ of comic culture get bored with it and move on, because they want a story, and the status quo prevents that story from ever being resolved.  If it is, then we reboot immediately.

 

And the constant,Batman / Joker dynamic is the absolute epitome of maintaining an endless status quo, the key to witch is a character generic enough to be the perfect villain in the mind of every reader, because they can make him who and how they want him to be, and know that they will always right.

 

Popularity, the comfort of the status quo--  none of these justify a 'perfect villain' who has had zero character development or norable change in what?  Fifty years or so?

 

No, Sir.  With absolute respect and genuine friendship (you know I love you, Dude.    ), I submit that the Joker is one of the worst characters still in use, and only survives specifically because  the fans do not want anything that upsets the all-important status quo of comics.

 

 

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

😄 This is a more literate argument against Joker stories. 

 

I took that to heart; hence all that above. 

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think I still disagree - am not sure the Joker is presented as mentally ill -

 

Again, _definitely_ not,a comic book guy, but _even I_ have seen him presented as 'certifiably insane' or given other mental illnesses as 'justification' for his actions and not- you know, locking him up for life or strapping him to the warm uncomfy chair.....

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

he is, like the heroes, an archetype of chaos. 

 

 

I won't rule that out, but I will add a rider that the most chaotic thing about him is every writer's refusal to actually develop the character yet use him as every possible type of villain, just to make certain no other writer can create a functioning character out of all this, either.

 

 

11 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

This, to me, is a symptom of written comic books

 

Yeah.  As an outsider looking in, I one-hundred percent agree with that.  However, that doesn't really do anything to bolster the idea that the Joker should continue to be used, incorrigible; unobtainable. 

 

 

 

[Doc Democracy]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Yeah.  As an outsider looking in, I one-hundred percent agree with that.  However, that doesn't really do anything to bolster the idea that the Joker should continue to be used, incorrigible; unobtainable. 

 

If they killed off the Joker, then the comics would have Joker knock-offs filling the space.  Batman is an archetype and his stories need opposing archetypes for him to work.  If not the Joker then some other character of a similar archetypes who might as well be called the Joker.

 

I don't like comic book continuity, it skews too many things as time goes on and the players neither age, grow or change.  If there was no continuity, then there would not be 1000's of Jokercrelated deaths over decades, just the potential victims in this story.

 

I like superhero stories, always have.  I don't mind them re-using villains in the same way I don't mind them using the same heroes, I know what I am expecting. The same as when the daleks or cybermen turn up in Dr Who.

 

In a superhero game, I only repeat a villain if the players demand it, otherwise I undermine their successes.

 

The problems with Joker and Batman stem mostly from continuity which demand they explain things and connect them to stories from before.  The need for grimdark nonsense drives some of it.

 

As for the neural health thing, there is an argument that anyone who commits a drive is mentally ill.  Folk use crazy and mentally ill epithets too easily (in comics AND real life).  I take the comic-book diagnosis of Joker's mental illness with the same scepticism as when he us declared medically dead, open to question.

 

To me, he represents an archetype of fear and chaos which manifests in a variety of ways.  I enjoy the stories that emerge from putting such an archetype into a place like Gotham and how it's archetype of justice and retribution engages with those results while sticking to a principled refusal to take a life.

 

Doc

 

 

[Gauntlet]

One thing I would love to see DC do is make The Joker a Hero. And not just an opposite world. One where somehow Joker, becomes a Hero, and performs heroism the same way he used to perform acts of villainy.