Superhumans pulling an Authority

[Metaphysician]

Yep, looks like this is just venting by somebody who doesn't like democracy, or America, or Bush.

 

I would really love to see what this Pantheon's response to somebody killing a few hundred of "their" citizens would be. . .

[Metaphysician]

No, the FATAL review is better, since it consists of a bunch of people making fun of and poking the holes in a completely worthless waste of words.

 

Unfortunately, making such a review is about as pleasant as replying to this guys wanking.

[The Watcher]

"I didn't elect you guys."

 

*Wanderer's Meta-Team is reduced to their component molecules*

 

"But I am voting you out."

[megaplayboy]

How do they protect their DNPCs? What happens when their DNPCs see them murdering soldiers and superheroes, and turn on them?

 

I'd say they're only a half dozen or so, they can't be everywhere at the same time. If they set up lesser lackeys to carry out their edicts, those lackeys will be vulnerable.

 

A superhuman underground resistance movement is likely to form, and may well include (pardoned) supervillains. If each hero can take on a whole team of lesser supers, what about 2 or 3 teams at once? If the resistance can stage a distraction, and tie down half the PCs in one spot, they can isolate and take out 1 or 2 PCs through sheer numbers.

 

From a roleplaying standpoint, a master villain can make a soliloquy talking about what noble heroes they WERE, but now they're worse than he ever was, because they do all the hoorible things he did, but he never pretended to be 'noble' in his motives for imposing his will on the world.

 

I think the world setting would have to be cyberpunk/X-Files-level bleak for such a move to be viewed at all positively by the populace.

 

If they overthrew a despotic ruler, and started turning a 3rd world coutry into a utopia, that would be an interesting campaign.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

Coulda sworn I posted to this thread already. . .

 

The apt term for those who would decide to "cut losses" and "compromise" with these alleged "heroes" is "Vichy traitor bastards deserving of nothing less than incredibly brutal and painful demise for abandoning every last precept of liberty and human dignity."

 

As for these "heroes," they are just Doctor Destroyer with better PR. The appropriate response is the use of any number of nukes necessary to take down every last one of them. That is, if the genuinely-heroic individuals can't take them down first, as my own superteam will be busy doing when we inevitably encounter such a world.

 

Yes, if they live in a city, alot of people will die when the nukes hit. Not our moral problem, theirs, for using the people as human shields.

 

Hmm, the only mass murderer mindset I see so far now is in this kind of fascist superpatriot macho posturing like this. So are we willing to nuke whole cities and sacrifice millions of innocents just to bring down some guys and gals who snapped the necks of some child molesrters, dictators and polluters, and refused to show up in tribunals? How humane, how democratic, how heroic. This just the kind of homicidal Dr. Strangelove mindset that would make a politician, no matter how much rightfully elected, unfit to rule, or live, in the campaign.

 

To reiterate: the characters have not setting themselves as absolute dictators as a goal. And mass killing of civilians will never be a acceptable tactic (unlike the above). Meeting force with force would be, in the sense of surgical strikes against military objectives, and eliminating ruthless political and militrary leaders who are willing to stoop to sacrifice millions of innocents to preserve every inch of their power.

 

As regards widespread civilian resistance: there are still non-lethal ways of enforcing. Say a country keeps sending whalers. Sink all whalers in ports, or after giving sailors time to climb lifeboats. After enough whalers are sunk, building them will become unaffordable. Using lethal force to keep the right to kill whales? Ahh, that would be a different matter.

[Metaphysician]

As has been said before, when the population tells them to screw off, they can do one of two things:

 

-Sulk and be ineffective

 

-Force the population to obey them

 

If they do the latter, than mass death *will* happen.

 

And I find it interesting that you don't find attempted world conquest to a legitimate reason for military defense. And yes, killing the president *is* an act of both war and conquest.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by megaplayboy

How do they protect their DNPCs? What happens when their DNPCs see them murdering soldiers and superheroes, and turn on them?

 

Very interesting RP and story point. The feeling of betrayal as their loved ones turn on them, when they just trived to make the world a better place for them, too. The pain, loss, and alienation. Yet what to do ? Turn on them, too. That way stand inhumanity, and true villainity. Backing dwn from their crsuade. So all they have strived for would be in vain. Accepting the loss, and keeping on with their crusade. ? How angstful. Attempting to show their loved ones the value of their motives? And what if their loved ones are suborned by the government into suicidal tactics (e.g. one of them is embedded with a tacnuke to be exploded in initmate moments with the super). What a wonderful scene to RP. Granted, this would likely spring the super in berserk fury for a while...

 

I'd say they're only a half dozen or so, they can't be everywhere at the same time. If they set up lesser lackeys to carry out their edicts, those lackeys will be vulnerable.

 

Who said they would set up as regning overlords? They would not do. They are not interested in powers. They are crusaders, not overlords. They may resort to the "Pavlov dog" tactic. They eliminate the leaders that ordered war against them, and let a new leadership rise. Then they retreat, and watch. If they renew war, they return, and deal with them, too. Sooner or later, someone will accept peace talks.

 

A superhuman underground resistance movement is likely to form, and may well include (pardoned) supervillains. If each hero can take on a whole team of lesser supers, what about 2 or 3 teams at once? If the resistance can stage a distraction, and tie down half the PCs in one spot, they can isolate and take out 1 or 2 PCs through sheer numbers.

 

Another good point. We'll see how this issue is dealt with in game. However, the superhuman wave tactic is likely to have been successfully dealt with before, since hordes of agents iwth super-technology or lesser superhumans are a tactic the government will likely use in previous phases of open conflict.

However, one of the first tactical lessons one gets from RPG is never, ever, split forces.

 

From a roleplaying standpoint, a master villain can make a soliloquy talking about what noble heroes they WERE, but now they're worse than he ever was, because they do all the hoorible things he did, but he never pretended to be 'noble' in his motives for imposing his will on the world.

 

Yeah, a moving point. And expect, and savor, another moving soliloquy where the characters urge the villain to turly redeem oneself by joining them on their selfless crusade, instead of backing corrupt governments who unleashed war to keep them from going on with their noble enterprise.

 

I think the world setting would have to be cyberpunk/X-Files-level bleak for such a move to be viewed at all positively by the populace.

 

Absolutely. Governments and corporations will be throughly mired in cyberpunk/X-Files-levels of corruption and selfishness. Top politicians are elected by media manipulation and pandering to the worst instincts of the masses, corporate executives are willing to despoil and violate anything to rack one more dollar/euro/yen, secret services and the military exist to cater to and protect the privileges of the powerful, laws and bureaucracies are just tools for the sordid interests of the rich and powerful, and true justice is just a dream from within the system. Masses are too distracted by the media and apathetic to notice that the world is slowly going to hell.

[Wanderer]

Originally posted by Metaphysician

As has been said before, when the population tells them to screw off, they can do one of two things:

 

-Sulk and be ineffective

 

-Force the population to obey them

 

If they do the latter, than mass death *will* happen.

 

And I find it interesting that you don't find attempted world conquest to a legitimate reason for military defense. And yes, killing the president *is* an act of both war and conquest.

 

As regards the population issue, a grass-roots non-violent resistance movement would indeed be one of the few ways to put characters in a little quandary, and a lot of soul-searching. The way I see it, they would restrict to non-lethal ways of enforcing their agenda, and there are issues they would still feel legitimate to pursue against the will of the majority: e.g. forcibly blocking environmental damage by breaking the tools, or destroying weapons.

 

Again, popular support to wahling won't amount to much, if whalers keep being sinked.

 

As for the president, the moment he ordered to use lethal force vs. the supers, that would be an act of war that would legitimate killing him. It's not an act of conquest, if you don't set up as the ruler in his place. It's a reprisal.

 

Declaring oneself unbound from the law *isn't* the same as attempting world conquest. It's more akin to waging a war of independence.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Wanderer

Declaring oneself unbound from the law *isn't* the same as attempting world conquest. It's more akin to waging a war of independence. [/b]

 

When you declare yourself unbound from the law within the sovreign boundaries of a nation state is is effectively an act of war. It is sociopathy at its finest.

 

These aren't heroes. These are people who don't believe they have to live in accordance with the social contract of their nation, the principles of democracy, or even have to hold themselves to the same standards of their fellow man.

 

These are villians. Plain and simple.

[Catacomb]

Ahhh the written smackdown by my friend David...*clap, clap*

 

 

On a different note it is quite a simple jump to conclude that you don't use the term 'superhero' because such a term obviously makes you uncomfortable. You are forcing your players to go into a mode of play where it's more "choose your own socilaistic, sociopathic, despotic, adventure" rather than allowing them to let morality be their guide which would in turn allow them an out in this situation. Why don't you allow the guys to walk a path of their own choosing. As far as the 'utopian' idea that was spoken of by MP earlier...come on this would/could be a utpoia? Not in it's best spun wardrobe could this come remotely close to being the same league let-alone metaphorical ballpark as a utopia...unless by utopia you mean something Orwellian, in which case okay you've got a utopian society.

[megaplayboy]

Well, they could set themselves up in an orbital HQ, or on the moon, or something, and in exchange for a "ceasefire", demand recognition by your world's UN.

 

They'd have to define their goals and motivations very carefully, and presumably have to have some way of directly communicating with the populace.

 

Since you're the GM, in order for the campaign to be "challenging" not only from an RP perspective but from a gaming perspective, It has to be possible for the characters to lose, fail, and/or even die in pursuit of their cause .

 

I have a hard time seeing how they could achieve their goals without effectively being at war with the major nations, agencies, heroes and villains in the world. If they knock off an oppressive government or megacorp by extralegal, undemocratic means, what guarantee do the successors have that they won't be knocked off in turn the moment they do something disagreeable to the group? In effect, they are going to be ruling the world, if they have veto power over the decisions of sovereign powers.

 

How would you feel if someone walked into your living room and started telling you everything you were doing wrong, and told you to correct your 'mistakes' or else?

 

Besides the significant other/your parents, I mean:D

[Eyendasky80]

They're terrorists. They use violence to achieve political goals. I don't think I would do that if I wanted to. It seems wrong in a base sense. This corrupt CEO is getting on my nerves. I'll kill him. How about you use your super senses to find where the bodies are buried and expose him? Damn whalers keeping whaling! I'll blow up their ships. What about their families? How will they make a living? How about you open a trade school and teach them how to make laptops or something. Why would you execute criminals on the spot when you can just as easily drop them off with the authorities and let the system take care of it. Then you don't have to be all terrorist like. Oh damn, they've sent the military after me. Of course they did, you're a freaking TERRORIST! The Authority is pretty bad in the fascist department, but I have a feeling they'd kill these guys too.

[dalton]

Originally posted by Wanderer

 

Exploring the challenge is meant to be half the fun. The other half, is exploring how much pursuing proactive radical vigilantism can be undertaken while clinging to a basic code of morals. What it means to really assuming full responsibility for power, and the consequences of one's actions.

________________________________________________________________

 

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In history we have

a long line of people who has committed atrocity for a better future or a great dream, instead they has just created nightmare.

How they deal with the conseguence of they action? Wth criticism by the media or the people?

Who watch the watchers?

In another response you have cited the fact that they don't assume the role of head of state, just eliminate the current government and put another in his place.

In my country we call that 'overthrow a democraticaly elected government and put in place a puppet figurehead', and is not a great think to do frome the PR point of view.

 

 

 

Labels like "supervillain" matter nothing and have zero interest here. It is interesting to explore the full meaning of the "hero" (and anti-hero) concept in a classical, not comic code, sense. You may notice that I consistently avoid to use the term "superhero", unless absolutely necessary. These characters are meant to lack despicable traits like casual killing, selfish motivations, ack of honor or mercy. Yet they are are daring idealists willing to take higher justice and the greater good in their hands, and playing judge and jury on the global scene, because the responsibility of their power calls for it.

______________________________________________

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

 

 

 

 

Look at the other side of the issue. Those selfsame metahumans are fighting, and exercising their own freedom, to free mankind from wars, crime, environmental damage, unjust laws and authorities, as much as they can, as better as they can. Sometimes, different concepts of freedom must clash, and one has to lose, or a compromise is necessary. And sometimes, it is for the better that a vision of freedom must lose: a war was fought for the freedom to keep slaves, and for the sake of all mankind, was lost.

____________________________________________________________

 

No, they are just ewercising their 'freedom' of force their concept of utopia, even if people don't agree with their idea.

I call it plain and simple terrorism

 

 

 

And since we are sliding to political, a "Higher Authority" metahuman willing to bully some unnamed politicos into pursuing the REAL criminals and keeping the global environment safe for future generations instead of wasting lives to protect the interests of tis corporate masters would be a real godsend, and a truer expression of the Human Spirit.

__________________________________________________________________

 

Strange, i think is called coercion.

By the way, here we have a group of unsanctioned and unelected people, who just because have great power think they must overule we poor ignorant masses, because they know better.

Uhmm sound like the manifesto of a powerhungry megalomaniac, or just a soliloquy of Doctor Doom.

In this scenario, i suppose that many people first agree with the supes, and in case of 'coupd'etat' probably many go with their lives out of fear just like in europe during the WWII, but in the long way they star a rebellion...becouse they has become pets who must be cared, not human.

_________________________________________________________

 

PS: i really hate the authority, they are just a bunch of bully

[Prometheus]

I'm curious, will you be challenging the characters (and players) with scenarios that they can't solve through force alone? Taking away China's nuclear arsenal will probably be dealt with, but will they have to come up with a way to solve its overpopulation? Will they have to deal with nationalism and dominion theology? What about the Roman Catholic Church's views on birth control and the role of women? Will they ever encounter a group of people who don't want their help, for better or for worse?

 

I'd have to say that for me, dealing with those (or similar) issues would really be the point of this type of campaign- the rest is just nice window dress. Having to deal with ALL the consequences of their literally world-altering power is practically the default theme. Take that away and you're either a) war gaming, or just power gaming.

 

And if the characters are soooo powerful that they can solve any problems, well then why bother playing it out?

[Metaphysician]

Originally posted by Eyendasky80

They're terrorists. They use violence to achieve political goals. I don't think I would do that if I wanted to. It seems wrong in a base sense. This corrupt CEO is getting on my nerves. I'll kill him. How about you use your super senses to find where the bodies are buried and expose him? Damn whalers keeping whaling! I'll blow up their ships. What about their families? How will they make a living? How about you open a trade school and teach them how to make laptops or something. Why would you execute criminals on the spot when you can just as easily drop them off with the authorities and let the system take care of it. Then you don't have to be all terrorist like. Oh damn, they've sent the military after me. Of course they did, you're a freaking TERRORIST! The Authority is pretty bad in the fascist department, but I have a feeling they'd kill these guys too.

 

For that matter, why has it not occured to them to use their abilities in a positive manner??

 

Instead of wantonly massacring polluters, how about having your team supergenius whip up some real killer pollution control tech, and start selling it at a loss, or providing it for free??

 

Instead of becoming executioner of criminals, how about using your various abilities to acquire absolute, incontravertible evidence of guilt that can be turned over to the proper authorities?? Contrary to what you may believe, district attorney's don't *want* to let guilty men go free.

 

I would ask why you don't try protecting political reformists in dictatorial states from crackdowns, but you've already demonstrated that you see democracy as a greater threat to your goals than tyranny.

[Supreme Serpent]

I'd be interested in how deep their convictions go, or if they're just on the power trip.

 

What happens if they see bad "after the fact" results from their actions? How would they react: (using some of the original example "what they do" things)

 

1) If they free a prisoner they feel was innocent, and then later on are presented with further damning proof that the guy was really guilty? Will they kill him? Turn him back over to the authorities, mumble "sorry", and fly away? Realize that THEY have freed a notorious criminal, and somehow punish themselves/each other using the methods they use against everyone else?

 

2) If they destroy a factory that they believe is causing serious environmental harm, and later scientific advance/evidence shows that prior models/studies were flawed and the factory was actually not causing environmental harm. Do they say "oh well"? Do they rebuild the factory, find a way to pay interest, etc. for the damage/lost productivity, etc they caused, mumble "sorry", and fly away? Realize that they destroyed valuable property/destroyed livelihoods based on false evidence and somehow punish themselves/each other using the methods they use against everyone else?

 

3) If they kill the criminal who "got away with it" and later evidence shows that he really was innocent after all. Do they say "oh well"? Do they turn themselves in to the authorities as murderers? Realize that they are in fact murderers and somehow punish themselves/each other using the methods they use against everyone else?

[TheRealVector]

"Yet they are are daring idealists willing to take higher justice and the greater good in their hands, and playing judge and jury on the global scene, because the responsibility of their power calls for it." ...Wanderer

 

Gee, I bet Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler said that to themselves all the time. In fact, there were always appeasers willing to tell them just that. Before its over these "idealist" will rack up a higher body count than any past tyrant.

 

Why did we bother to free Europe three times? It appears many of them hate freedom and Western Civilization so much that they must atone for it. The future Europe craves: A jackbooted foot smashing a human face, forever.

 

On a different note, I think this could be a pretty cool campaign if you, as GM, try to be a fair arbiter between your power mad hippies and the campaign world.

[The Watcher]

Though it would be much cooler if all of us can take our PC's, invade their world en masse, and kill these guys.

 

I'm sure we could scrape up enough worldbeaters to seriously ruin their day.

[Chuckg]

[starguard]

 

Not kill. Bring to justice.

 

Well, unless they're demons or something.

 

[/starguard]

[The Watcher]

Darn. Starguard's Code vs Killing has run up against Warp's Enraged When Innocents Killed (Interns and other staff who happened to be killed during the White House Attack).

 

"Killing them would be justice! Look at what they've done! Now it's time to pay them back in full!"

[freakboy6117]

i thought i shoudl mention The Authority them selves.

 

so far they have excuted 2 united states presidents

 

the first was the least justifiable

 

in the sense that it wasn't for the common good but in revenge for his treatment of the team but as that treatment involved mind control rape torture and the death of sevral thousand refugees under there protection. not to mention the creation of seth and an attempt to subjugate the collective unconmciosuness of the world for corprate intreasts.

 

teh second which happend just recently was in response top teh possibility of an extradimensional war with oen of teh most advanced species in existance and there allies. one life to prevent that war is probably justifiable if not very ethical.

 

the authorities later action is unfortunatly totally reprehensible they decided that as the US goverment had proved on numerous occasions to be a danger to global security that it was safer if they ran things as a dictorshiplead by them.

 

and there in lies the problem no matter how good the authorities intetions replacing a democracy with a dictarorship will always be a lose lose proposition.

basically the authority have just fallen foul of the very thing they deposed the previous administration for acting in there own intreast not that of the citizens and the global community. Hopefully they will see the error of there ways and take santini(leader of team achilles) offer and reinstate democracy in america before going and ousting the government of china and paving the way for a utopian deomcracy as only a super genius and the spiritual representative of humanity can.

[Chuckg]

[and the team conflict goes on and on...]

 

Shifting subjects, re: the Authority -- well, Wildstorm tried to hedge its bets by making the governments of Earth-Wildstorm, *especially* the US government, the most hideously corrupt and depraved false fronts for the Secret Illuminati Conspiracies Of Evil that ever existed. i.e. -- it wasn't just a government, it was worse "superbastards" than Hitler or Stalin.

 

And even then, it was a lose-lose.

[dalton]

nt.

 

Why did we bother to free Europe three times? It appears many of them hate freedom and Western Civilization so much that they must atone for it. The future Europe craves: A jackbooted foot smashing a human face, forever.

 

Ironically, many here in Europe think that of the USA

[Beetle]

You folks have done a good job discussing many of the disturbing things about this scenario, so I won't rehash any of that. I do have two thoughts, though.

 

Originally posted by WandererEquality under the law is nice in principle, but would the public support going to all-out nuclear war just to keep some superhumans subject to the rule of law??

There's no just when it comes to the rule of law. The principle that no person is above the law comprises a large part of the basis of western civilization. I'd expect nation-states to go pretty darn far in their efforts to maintain the rule of law. What your team of people are advocating is nothing less then rule by the strongest. That wouldn't be acceptable to anybody who's not a sheep.

 

Second, there seems to be general assumption that all the members of this team will be in complete agreement on all subjects. I've never met any group of more than one person who agreed on all matters of importance. What happens when one team member dares to disagree with the others? Does he get an icepick in the head like Trotsky?

[nexus]

Originally posted by Chuckg

[and the team conflict goes on and on...]

 

Shifting subjects, re: the Authority -- well, Wildstorm tried to hedge its bets by making the governments of Earth-Wildstorm, *especially* the US government, the most hideously corrupt and depraved false fronts for the Secret Illuminati Conspiracies Of Evil that ever existed. i.e. -- it wasn't just a government, it was worse "superbastards" than Hitler or Stalin.

 

And even then, it was a lose-lose.

 

I found this extremely annoying so this post might be more incoherent than ususal. But this whole set up smells. I've been following this thread and the one at RPG.net and it just sounds more like a thinly veiled political rant than a game. Its presented as a "realistic" situation but its sounds like GM (I assume) envisions an almost cartoonish world where good and evil, black and white are clearly divided. And the line falls squarely between conservative and liberal and the worst problem in world is "Evil White guys" (American, mind you) that are curerntly in power and deserve nothing but death. Its a world where these "crusaders" can blow up industries that they don't like and somehow never harm an innocent, cause massive unemployment or even cause more envieromental damage than that stop.

 

I could also make a few statement about "peace loving" Europe, but this is the time or the place.