4 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

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. 

 

I understand the desire and I might even be interested in a one-shot story.  However, to me, that moves the Joker away from that archetypal entity I was talking about and potentially from being as interesting.

 

Like superman being a bad guy.  I enjoyed reading the first Injustice series, I powered through the second one and never touched another.  Superman is interesting to me because he is an archetype of good.  The most powerful being in the universe and he ties his own hands and will rescue kittens as happily as stand up to Darkseid.

 

These stories, if written well can be intriguing and reflect in useful ways on the mainstream archetypal delivery of the character we usually get.  It helps define and redefine that archetype because you can see what might be were he not so archetypal.

 

However, I like my clear boundaries.  I like my heroes and villains. I like the straightforwardness of it when real life is showing me ever murkier shades of grey. 

 

I suppose that is why I am not concerned by the Joker as a villain.  He is not real, I do not equate him with people in the real world, he is, in my mind, supposed to be pure evil (something I might find difficult to say about any of my real world villains) and the claims in comic and in commentary about mental illness and everything else is the potential inadequacy of our society to really handle quintessential evil.  We look for reasons and patterns and potential redemption. 

 

Obviously US culture is significantly different from the UK and EU in this respect as we do not consider the death penalty as compatible with human rights, the most fundamental of those being the right to life.  It is not, here in the UK, within the state's gift to, judicially, decide to remove that right. In the US, it would be inconceivable that the Joker would not face the death penalty, even after just one story, so, if he is to be available for future stories, he needs to either not be caught or designated in some way that avoids that judicial process.

 

Getting back to the point, if the Joker became a superhero, who would he be fighting against?  What would the competing tropes be? Who would be his nemesis? Or, in other words, what would be the point?

 

The suggestion that Batman created the Joker is almost true.  Batman is less intriguing without a rogues gallery and for that gallery to be in rotation is satisfying for readers.  It is not Batman that created the Joker, it is the mythic structure of the stories.  You could write stories where Batman combatted organised crime and petty criminals and delivered them to the justice system but you might as well write Law and Order.

 

Superheroes do not exist in the real world and to read their stories you need to suspend disbelief not just that a man could fly, but that real world consequences have no place in mythic tales.  You might as well ask why Odin never simply killed Loki, it was pretty obvious it was all going to end badly...

There's the "White Knight" reality from DC's Black Label line that has a "heroic" Joker...

Doc:

 

You realize you arr making the point that the Joker is non-descript and uninteresting as-is; do you not?

 

Everything you state the Joker to be is, by your own words, what you have decided him to be; what you yourself have put into him.

 

 

The Joker is a dull, boring, undetailed, unfinished character that was once unpopular and poorly regarded until that Miller jackass edgelorded up a reboot and ripped away the (awful but genuinely extant character and turned him into the completely blank but handy source of whatever violenece was needed, and boom!  Popular ever after, in spite of not ever having been  more than a sketch.

 

And why?

 

Because he is the choose-your-adventure version of an actual character:  the writers decide "look I got nothin'.  Dump whatever you want in there, Kid."

 

This is "an archetype of evil" the same way that a mannequin is an archetype of beauty of Kanye is an archetype of intelligence

 

 

There is something there: aomwthinf absolutely bare-bones.  A mannequin is vaguely human-shaped.  That's a necessary requirement to beauty, at least to most people.  There is nothing else there; the observer invents the details.

 

Kanye constantly tells us he's a genius.  That, too, shows a rudimentary basic of intelligence: if you make noise, people will notive you.  Some of them will listen to the noise, and some smaller set of those will believe the noise, which may be something on which you can survive.  It demonatrates the rudimentary logic of a basic animal brain.  The rest of the details are invented by fans.

 

The Joker is in the drawer labeled "bad guys" in the folder labeled "blank character sheets."  However, it is the drawer labeled Bad Guys, which is the basic element of bad personhood;  all the details are invented by fans.

 

This is why I say I would prefer am absence of Joker Stories.  There,is no Joker; just an,uninteresting, undeveloped placeholder for an actual character that never got written.

 

For Pete's sale:  Claremont's Kitty Pride was more interesting, his Wolverine more intriguing, and his Cyclops far-better-developed.

 

Honestly, I think I would prefer they replaced Joker with "Mannequin Man!  A malleable, undefinable source of evil!"  Without a costume, maybe they would develop a character.  With the Joker, they kind of went the other way.  I mean, there are _no_ flaws with his sartorial selections, ever.  But I can say the same thing about my brother David, who is absolutely not a villain.

 

 

Once again, the reason the Joker has to be taken out now is not because of anything innate in his character, but because of the way writers have been writing him. Each new writer thinks they have to top the previous one. Frank Miller tried to show Joker at his most unhinged, most horrible so that Batman had to take extreme measures to stop him -- and later authors took that as a base line and wanted to make THEIR Joker story even more awful.

 

In the end, they turned a sinister, somewhat deadly clown who did tricks like turn every fish in the harbor into Joker fish... into a mass murdering psychopath who slaughters by the dozens, or hundreds.  THAT Joker has to be taken out.  The Joker he started as, no.

O am remarkably okay with that.

 

Do I want to google what a joker fish is?  'Cause right now I am thinking I don't...

 

 

 

 

Classic Batman story with Neal Adams art

 

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

You realize you arr making the point that the Joker is non-descript and uninteresting as-is; do you not?

 

If I am, I am doing an incredibly bad job of saying things!! 🙂

 

I have read a LOT of Batman and fewer Joker stories.  I have read great Joker stories and some awful ones.

 

I think, in the good stories, more than any other member of the rogues gallery, Joker is the antithesis of Batman. It is that direct contrast that often makes the story a good one, the opposite throwing the heroic into sharp relief.

 

I agree with @Christopher R Taylor that writers got into a bit of a bidding war in how far they could take chaotic evil and a lot of that almost glories in the anarchy rather than in the heroics necessary to remedy it.

 

In the Dark Knight film, when Joker left Batman with the dilemma of which of two bombs he would choose to defuse, who he would allow to die, classic Batman would have had a contingency to cut the Gordian knot and prevent both bombs.  THAT is why he is a SUPERhero, not one of your run of the mill heroes.

 

The Joker gives the writer free rein to imagine excesses, it is his job however to ensure he gives the Batman a way to rein that it.  any sacrifice should be personal. If it came to it, Batman would die and save both people.  I hate that they wanted to make drama by having the Hero fail.  If I pulled that crap in a fame, my players would string me up and it demonstrates to me, again and again that the big studios fundamentally do not understand superheroes.

 

Yeah, it worked in the movie for batman to not save Rachel, because it got her out of the picture and gave us Two Face.  But it was a bad Batman story, because Batman utterly failed and Joke won (over and over).  Its like Superman murdering Zod by twisting his neck slightly after a 10 minute battle where he couldn't harm Zod at all, next to people too stupid to get up and walk away from the death beam.  Heroes find a way.  Especially Batman.

6 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Frank Miller tried to show Joker at his most unhinged, most horrible so that Batman had to take extreme measures to stop him -- and later authors took that as a base line and wanted to make THEIR Joker story even more awful.

 

Are you talking The Dark Knight Returns? Because Batman doesn't take the Joker out in that. 

 

1 hour ago, Doc Democracy said:

I think, in the good stories, more than any other member of the rogues gallery, Joker is the antithesis of Batman. It is that direct contrast that often makes the story a good one, the opposite throwing the heroic into sharp relief.

 

IMHO, Joker works best as a foil to Batman. He's an intelligent villain who's psychopathic focus is on the concept and reality of Batman. Some of the recent stories have kind of shown some different sides to him. Batman: Three Jokers was an interesting concept, but seemed a bit half-baked. There seemed to be more story that should've been told for that. Whereas Batman: Death of the Family kind of dealt with the horrors of Joker knowing too much. The recent Batman stories have teased a Joker: Year One storyline that could be fun, so long as they keep the badger in the bag. We don't really need a definitive origin for the clown. He works better when we're guessing what's real and what's been slathered together in that squirrel's nest he calls a mind. I dig the villain, but then I also like a chunk of the Bat's rogue's gallery. 

 

5 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Classic Batman story with Neal Adams art

 

 

 

 

Thank you, Christopher; now I know that.

 

 

And that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read.  😕

 

every time I learn more about comic books, the more I remember why I never got into them.

 

except Iron Man.  I read a few of those as a kid.  And a few of the original Captain Marvel.

 

Captain Marvel was what I thought was pretty typical comic book fare.  It didn't take itself seriously at all, which made it more palatable than other such books.  A Joker fish story there and I wouldnt have batted an eye. But that story line in a comic that takes itself as seriously as most of them do?

 

 

nah.  I'm good.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

But that story line in a comic that takes itself as seriously as most of them do?

 

It was the height of the Silver Age, comics did not, on the whole, take themselves seriously at that time.  There were some classic stories during that time that gave rise to stories that were more adult, where the art was actual art and a desire to create things that would merit collecting. 

 

It is sad that this drive for quality shrunk the market and priced out multitudes of future comicbook readers.

 

I held out against Baxter versions for years, until it was all I could buy but continuity and crossovers pushed me to buying only back issues and trade paperback collections.

 

 

16 hours ago, Doc Democracy said:

In the Dark Knight film, when Joker left Batman with the dilemma of which of two bombs he would choose to defuse, who he would allow to die, classic Batman would have had a contingency to cut the Gordian knot and prevent both bombs.  THAT is why he is a SUPERhero, not one of your run of the mill heroes.

 

The Joker gives the writer free rein to imagine excesses, it is his job however to ensure he gives the Batman a way to rein that it.  any sacrifice should be personal. If it came to it, Batman would die and save both people.  I hate that they wanted to make drama by having the Hero fail.  If I pulled that crap in a fame, my players would string me up and it demonstrates to me, again and again that the big studios fundamentally do not understand superheroes.

 

Back in the day, the Star Trek RPG (old enough that no one had to ask "which series") stimulated a great article about the tropes needed to get the feel of Star Trek.

 

The Prime Directive - we don't interfere.

 

Integrity - Starfleet Academy is filled with tests of character and opportunities to flunk out, so those who make it through all have high inegrity.

 

"Take me and free my men." - the Captain would trade his life for any crewman.

 

But it also discussed the tropes the GM had to honour.

 

That integrity leads to challenges, but success and not failure.

 

When the Captain walks into a hopeless situation to save that random crew member, it's not really hopeless- there is always a way to turn the tide.

 

"Phasers, Sir?  Ye've got 'em - I managed to restore one bank."

 

I'm amazed how often I read GM diatribes of their players who refuse to follow genre tropes, and instead gravitate to murderhobos who don't trust or care about NPCs.

 

Then we dig a little deeper.  Heroes show restraint?  They lose the combat and the villains win.

 

Heroes don't kill?  The villain comes back, this time causing even more damage to anything the PCs/players care about.

 

Trust an NPC?  You get betrayed.

 

Those genre tropes the heroes follow cause them challenges, but they also come back to the heroes' benefit, not their detriment.  If the GM won't follow that trope, why would the players follow their genre tropes?

Quote

 

Those genre tropes the heroes follow cause them challenges, but they also come back to the heroes' benefit, not their detriment.  If the GM won't follow that trope, why would the players follow their genre tropes?

 

Yeah I have been in one of those games.  One fault GMs can fall into is to try to win, or at least to feel disappointed that their villains are beaten too easily.  So they keep making the villains tougher and meaner and the PCs feel like they're in an arms race that requires them to be even more powerful and deadly.

 

The concept here is that as a game, its about fun, and failure, misery, and being defeated is not fun.  Its even tough to get some players to handle temporary defeat followed by amazing victory.  This is where, in my opinion, the Avengers movies failed: they made the misery and loss and failure too total and the victory too minor and filled with suffering, regret, and misery.  You didn't get that sense of triumph when Thanos was disintegrated, just a sense of relief.

 

The first Avengers movie did it perfectly: very tough fight, almost a loss, incredibly challenging, but total triumph and redemption in the end.  The second one... less so, because the stakes were so odd and felt so minor even though they were built up to be enormous.  They evacuated a floating city.  Yes, the claim was it would somehow blow up the earth yadda yadda, but it never felt like that was what would happen.  

On 1/5/2024 at 2:26 AM, Doc Democracy said:

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.

 

Or an avater of a god of chaos.

 

Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker?  Suppose he has killed the Joker.  More than once.  Every time he does, a short time later, months at most, someone else pops up as the Joker -- always in Gotham City -- and usually kills a bunch of people as his first outing. 

 

Why do you think that in one appearance he was Jack Napier, in another he was Arthur Fleck, another as Jack Oswald White...

 

Kill one, the chaos god bides a while then selects some other poor soul to be the next Joker and possesses him.  The cycle starts again. 

 

Why hasn't the Batman figured this out?  Why is this god of chaos obsessed with him?  Why does he always come back in Gotham City?

 

Why can't DC writers come up with a story at least as interesting as this?

Gotta say, that would actually make me have _Some_ appreciation for an otherwise fairly generic villain.

 

 

At this point, given what has been done to the character, it actually makes more sense than having just one guy be like this for 90 years.  And it would give the character a very interesting, unusual feel, although it would make stories like Joker's Last Laugh not work any longer.

Of course one thing that could be interesting with the Joker, is perhaps it's not the same person each time. Perhaps somehow the Joker is being recreated.

On 1/4/2024 at 5:28 PM, 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.

 That's how I do things as well. I haven't run superheroes since high school. Now I will ply them, but running, them. no. I am too mean.

Edited January 29, 20241 yr by Scott Ruggels

On 1/6/2024 at 6:17 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Classic Batman story with Neal Adams art

 

That's actually Marshall Rogers doing the art. "The Laughing Fish" was written by Steve Englehart, with art by Rogers. Great story and pretty well adapted into the BTAS cartoon. 

Right, thanks, Rogers art.  Another top notch 70s artist who never seemed to get enough work.  I think he was really slow.