Code VS Killing Poll

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yes' date=' it was a joke. [/quote']

Enh... humor's slightly lost to me this time of the morning...

 

John T

[Agent X]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Some Superheroes DO NOT KILL. Superman as example

Some Superheroes Kill in the most extreme circumstances. Wolverine as example

 

Extreme Circumstances, a relative term, is defined by the capabilities of the Superhero.

 

Some SuperTHUGS kill when an opponent uses lethal force.

Some SuperTHUGS kill when they can rationalize it.

Some SuperTHUGS kill when they can legally get away with it.

Some SuperTHUGS are Supervillains masquerading as Superheroes.

 

That's my take on all of this. Thus, Superman and Wolverine are both superheroes and Punisher is a supervillain.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

So, what "color-state" ARE modern comics? 32-bit?

 

John T

1024 True Color!

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Some Superheroes DO NOT KILL. Superman as example

True, if you're talking about the Silver Age Superman, but not true of the Iron Age Man of Steel. Superman will kill but his circumstances threshold is very high, much higher than Wolverine for example.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It’s been 19 hours. I’m 100 posts behind now…

 

 

Here's one of the main cruxes of the current debate. Your definition *might* be true in strictly 4-color superhero context. Yet the genre has greatly broadened beyond that. You are certainly entitled to feel that non-4-color superheroes are no more true superheroes' date=' though the fact they exist in source material has enlarged the frame of reference, and your definition no longer satisfies the reference material. Besides, being willing to kill and being willing to ignore laws are wholly different, if interrelated things [/quote']

 

 

I don’t think my definition needs to apply only to 4-color comics in the strictest sense. I am, however, talking mainstream comics. Batman, Nightwing, JLA (or Captain America, Spiderman & Avengers, if you prefer). It still fits. However, my point didn’t address comics as a whole—I only referred to the fact that “The Authority†is not a reasonable example of superheroes, because they don’t act like heroes.

 

I also never said ignoring the law disqualifies one from being a hero. I said that it’s my opinion that superheroes are real heroes because they follow the same moral and ethical compass as do those without any extra powers or abilities. The fact that they choose to group themselves with those they’ve sworn to protect adds a touch of humanity that groups like The Authority fail to connect with. Breaking the law is sometimes part of being a superhero (even Capt. America has broken the law, after all). Killing without remorse isn’t part of being a superhero, in my opinion.

 

It’s my opinion, Wanderer, that you’re ideas of what constitutes a superhero, and what constitutes justifiable death, do not necessary match up with the majority of people involved in the thread. That’s not to say you’re wrong—I don’t think an opinion can be wrong—but you are definitely in the minority here.

 

(though I'm well aware that in your view, ignoring the law, too, disqualifies superheroes from your strict standard).

 

You can’t be well aware of my view, because I didn’t tell you what I thought regarding the law. Please don’t assign or attribute beliefs or words to me that I didn’t write.

 

I utterly fail to see the point or the meaning of the final line. How can one be heroic, yet not being an hero ???

 

It’s easy, really. Don’t hack on my example, by the way—I’m merely trying to illustrate a point here.

 

Let’s say you have a guy who can kill without remorse. He’s a criminal of the baddest sort, a mercenary, an assassin. In no way, shape or form is he a hero. Now let’s say that said bad@$$ comes across a burning building. A woman is outside screaming because her children are trapped inside. On a whim, the bad@$$ runs into the building and pulls the children out.

 

That’s heroic, but no one would think he was a hero. A “hero†is a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: (one definition, anyway), while being “heroic†is merely displaying those qualities, the implication being that it relates to a given feat or specific incident.

 

Cap and Superman have both killed when absolutely necessary (in current incarnations, anyway…I’m not going back to “Cap in WWIIâ€). Both felt remorse. I would say that both have a CvK of the highest order. Both are, obviously, superheroes.

 

To live up to the moniker of “superheroâ€, one should never murder. One should kill only when doing so prevents further harm to others. Lethal force is a last resort, but a viable option in certain circumstances. Every effort should be made to remain within the spirit of the law if not the letter, but again, there may be exceptions. One should not place themselves above those s/he seeks to protect, for in doing so one loses the perspective necessary to remain empathic with them.

 

It’s short and not complete, but it gives you an idea of what I’m talking about. Some of my little guidelines leave room for interpretation, as was my intent. It may vary from person to person, culture to culture, but I believe I’ve captured the “gistâ€. Anyone can feel free to disagree, but it’s unlikely you can convince me that any of the above is false in referring to a superhero of any genre.

[Agent X]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

True' date=' if you're talking about the Silver Age Superman, but not true of the Iron Age Man of Steel. Superman will kill but his circumstances threshold is very high, much higher than Wolverine for example.[/quote'] Iron Age? Speak not of such things.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

To live up to the moniker of “superheroâ€' date=' one should never murder.[/quote']What about euthanasia?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I said that it’s my opinion that superheroes are real heroes because they follow the same moral and ethical compass as do those without any extra powers or abilities.

 

Here is where things get sticky. I'm glad you repeated yourself, because it reminded me I wanted to comment on this.

 

Why in the world would superhumans confine themselves by human standards?

 

See this is the real issue. The CvK issue is trying to apply human standards to non-human beings. It's like a group of dogs sitting around saying, "Because humans don't sniff butts when they greet each other, they are clearly not good beings."

 

That's a joke... but it makes my point. Ethics, morality, values... these are human concepts... they are created by human thoughts, implemented by human actions, and really only have meaning for human beings.

 

To understand rational humanism... to understand human ethics... is to understand the human condition... these values and ethics and morals are based on humans trying to meet human needs (security, food, shelter, fulfillment, the whole Maslow heirarchy) and are expressed through human constructs... law, religion, society, institutions, etc. These values and ethics and morals are attempts to communicate and propagate behavior that is "in the best interest of being human" (though clearly many of them are horribly misguided in this attempt.)

 

Superhumans (depending on their power suite, of course) are often beyond these things. When you don't need to eat or sleep... when you are not limited by natural elements or even gravity... when you can perceive the universe in ways that are totally theoretically approximated by a human... well, you aren't constrained by the Heirarchy of needs any longer... so human ethics/morality simply don't apply.

 

Now that isn't to say a character like Superman, indoctrinated in humanity from infancy, couldn't choose to try and "act" human, to apply human codes to themselves... and to us humans, this is a good thing... but it is beyond humans to really judge. For a human to judge a superhuman's actions, you can only attempt to apply some logic, based on the apparent needs that might apply to a metahuman... example... a metahuman may not need to eat, but there may still be a need to create social groups in order to fulfill their being... thus you could rate certain behaviors the impede/harm such social groups as unethical/immoral for that metahuman, because they are not in the best interest of the metahuman in question.

 

Thus... for all that... the term hero... a value term created by humans... really has no place in discussing metahumans. It's like trying to say a lion is heroic for hunting... or a chimpanzee saying we are unheroic because we don't engage in social grooming.

 

Hero can only apply to human beings taking human actions within the confines of the human condition (which IS our reality). We can appreciate a superhuman applying our codes of conduct to it's behavior... but that is still us applying our values... and really speaks not at all to the nature of that metahuman at all. We are incapable of truly evaluating and judging a metahuman, because we are not one.

 

This is the kind of stuff I find fascinating to play with in super RPGs, because you can really get into the heavy philosophy behind "Why do you do what you do?" in a unique and sophisticated way.

 

Anyway... that's just my two cents on the matter. I'll shut up now.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

What about euthanasia?

 

That's like asking about abortion (which I'm not doing, by the way). Many people don't consider euthanasia to be murder. And if you're following the literal definition of euthanasia then there is already an element of compassion involved (again, if you believe in it. I do, but opinions vary). I'd say that a superhero/PC could indeed believe in euthanasia if that's their belief (or at least that of the player).

 

Another example of a more "out there" approach is in regards to mercy killing. In "Last of the Mohicans" (Daniel Day Lewis version), Hawkeye shoots the British officer rather than let him suffer at the hands of the Indians who have set him on fire. That scene in "Starship Troopers" where the hero kills his sergeant (played by the lovable Michael Ironside) after said sergeant gets bitten in half is another example.

 

Both could still fall into the realm of acceptable behavior for a superhero in many comics/campaigns. Again, though, there's always room for interpretation.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In "Last of the Mohicans" (Daniel Day Lewis version)' date=' Hawkeye shoots the British officer rather than let him suffer at the hands of the Indians who have set him on fire. That scene in "Starship Troopers" where the hero kills his sergeant (played by the lovable Michael Ironside) after said sergeant gets bitten in half is another example.[/quote']

 

You should see The Sand Pebbles. I think you would appreciate it, and I'd be interested to know what you thought afterward.

 

No, I realize Steve McQueen is not a superhero, and by my own groundrules I asked that soliders and war not be brought into the ostensible topic of this thread. Nonetheless, it is a really good movie, and I think the protagonist's perspective on his environment is not too dissimilar from what a superhuman might feel among humans.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

CVK is not an absolute BUT...

violating it should bring up MAJOR issues of remorse and atonement for the character.

 

Shifting out of the purely gaming discussion...

A Code of Ethics of any sort is usually something a person decides upon before encountering the 'fork in the road'.

 

examples:

choosing to never smoke a cigarette.

(I made this choice a long time ago out of recognition of my obsessive/compulsive nature and its addictive nature. however I have smoked pot and found out i was allergic!)

choosing to be faithful to family and friends.

choosing to never lie when using the words "I love you".

etc...

 

all of these personal 'codes' can be interpretted with shades of grey but I know what the boundary was when I chose to follow each code so I would know if I ever broke one even if it qualified as an acceptable exception. I have done this and suffered the consequences. It is not fun and I do not wish the experience on anyone.

 

However, back to the roleplaying aspect of breaking a code of ethics...

 

If I remember the old 1st edition D&D description of Paladin's and Rangers with any accuracy I seem to recall there being a pretty defined process that those classes would have to complete in order to regain their special powers if they were ever stripped due to alignment violations.

 

I am not advocating enforcing any additional disadvantages or power limitations to mirror D&D rules but the player should understand that violations of a major pysch code of ANY sort is a step down the path of the 'dark side' or in other words: a major case of NPC'itess as my old GM used to call it. There are exceptions to every rule but there are also concequences to the exceptions too. With regard to RPG's I think it would be wise to consider that the primary purpose of gaming is to have fun. If a player decides that his original concept of pysch disadvantages are too restrictive a GM should give him an opportunity to buy them off or modify them somehow in game if at all possible.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That's a joke... but it makes my point. Ethics, morality, values... these are human concepts... they are created by human thoughts, implemented by human actions, and really only have meaning for human beings.

 

- snip -

 

Superhumans (depending on their power suite, of course) are often beyond these things. When you don't need to eat or sleep... when you are not limited by natural elements or even gravity... when you can perceive the universe in ways that are totally theoretically approximated by a human... well, you aren't constrained by the Heirarchy of needs any longer... so human ethics/morality simply don't apply.

 

 

I read the whole thing, by the way. I just snipped parts for brevity's sake.

 

I disagree with this assessment, and for two reasons.

 

First, I don't believe that morals and ethics are "human centric". It's my opinion that a superhero within the context of most mainstream comics and most Champions games are almost required to attempt to understand and relate to the morals and ethics of those they are trying to protect. Otherwise you get The Authority. Speaking from a superhero's perspective, when they no longer relate to those they are trying to protect, those they are trying to protect no longer relate to them. That separation can cost a person their humility, their compassion, their sincere altruistic motives, and those characteristics can be easily replaced with conceit, arrogance, or megalomania.

 

It's precisely that the norms don't apply to them, yet they still strive to achieve that level of empathy, that contributes to the definition of superhero.

 

Second, I don’t believe that humans and superhumans are two different animals, any more than I believe “African American†and “Caucasian†are two completely different animals. They’re just different, not separate.

 

 

Now that isn't to say a character like Superman, indoctrinated in humanity from infancy, couldn't choose to try and "act" human, to apply human codes to themselves... and to us humans, this is a good thing... but it is beyond humans to really judge. For a human to judge a superhuman's actions, you can only attempt to apply some logic, based on the apparent needs that might apply to a metahuman... example... a metahuman may not need to eat, but there may still be a need to create social groups in order to fulfill their being... thus you could rate certain behaviors the impede/harm such social groups as unethical/immoral for that metahuman, because they are not in the best interest of the metahuman in question.

 

 

I don't agree with at least part of what you say above, and in general I disagree with what I think is your point.

 

If a superhero is so out of touch with humanity that they can no longer relate, are they really a superhero? A person who does all the right things for all the wrong reasons isn't a superhero. The connection between human and more-than-human is imperative. Motives are imperative. Intent is imperative. In order for that connection to be valid, and the motives and intent to be sincere, there has to be a level of empathy, of compassion. It seems to me you're saying that this isn't a necessary factor, and while it's possible that an extreme example could be found to support that, I'd have to say that I still believe that empathy is necessary to be a superhero.

 

Thus... for all that... the term hero... a value term created by humans... really has no place in discussing metahumans. It's like trying to say a lion is heroic for hunting... or a chimpanzee saying we are unheroic because we don't engage in social grooming.

 

 

I think your analogies have gone too far astray. A lion is not heroic for hunting, true. A lion that chooses to hunt and walk away from a kill so that another lion can eat, perhaps one that is sick or injured, could be construed as heroic. But I don't think this line of reasoning is valid because animals don't make moral choices.

 

 

Hero can only apply to human beings taking human actions within the confines of the human condition (which IS our reality). We can appreciate a superhuman applying our codes of conduct to it's behavior... but that is still us applying our values... and really speaks not at all to the nature of that metahuman at all. We are incapable of truly evaluating and judging a metahuman, because we are not one.

 

Understood, but you've twisted the argument slightly. Bear in mind I'm not comfortable with your distinction between "human" and "superhuman", because I don't see them as two different species.

 

However, to address the actual point, it's the superhero who is applying the moral and ethical guide to their actions that make them a superhero. The public's perception is inconsequential at this point. Spiderman is a superhero, yet the majority of the public might see him still as a villain of sorts (thanks to the Daily Bugle). Yet he uses moral and ethical guidelines that any normal person would understand, relate to and likely agree with (at least in the general sense). The X-Men were once counted as outlaws, but they preached (and I mean preached...sheesh! ) that they must not hold themselves above "homo sapiens" because to do so would be to embrace that which they oppose--that they are better than everyone else, which is what Magneto believes. The X-Men don’t believe this, and seek to show the world that despite their abilities and differences, they are essentially the same.

 

Superman, as you pointed out, was raised with common sense and courtesy to believe in humanity, and to believe in what humanity believes in. He doesn't hold himself above others any more than a fireman would hold himself over someone not trained to fight fires. He still feels compassion and empathy for those he protects, and that's why he won't kill. He could kill, and he could probably justify it in many cases, but he doesn't, because the majority of humanity (or at least in our society) believes that the use of lethal force should be a last resort, not a common choice.

 

This is the kind of stuff I find fascinating to play with in super RPGs, because you can really get into the heavy philosophy behind "Why do you do what you do?" in a unique and sophisticated way.

 

Anyway... that's just my two cents on the matter. I'll shut up now.

 

 

Heh. Don't do that. It was just gettin' good!

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

You should see The Sand Pebbles. I think you would appreciate it' date=' and I'd be interested to know what you thought afterward.[/quote']

 

 

If you're talking about the scene where he takes the rifle from the deck guard and shoots the guy who's been captured by the Chinese on the shore, I remember that scene and would group it with my other examples.

 

I haven't seen that movie in years, but it's a good one.

 

No, I realize Steve McQueen is not a superhero, and by my own groundrules I asked that soliders and war not be brought into the ostensible topic of this thread. Nonetheless, it is a really good movie, and I think the protagonist's perspective on his environment is not too dissimilar from what a superhuman might feel among humans.

 

There's definitely a similarity in my mind, though obviously it's a different context. It's a good example.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I still believe that empathy is necessary to be a superhero.

 

This sings.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

As for Wolverine as a hero' date=' superhero or what have you, he's among the first "super anti-heros", in my opinion. Well written, he's trying to keep his berserker rages in check, and comes off as a haunted individual, not a cold-blooded killer. Poorly written, he's the Punisher with claws. In either case, I agree with you that he's not the "moral superhero" icon.[/quote']

 

And to clarify, Wolverine is one of my favorite comic-book characters.

 

 

Just thought I'd mention that.

 

Mags

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

To live up to the moniker of “superheroâ€, one should never murder. One should kill only when doing so prevents further harm to others. Lethal force is a last resort, but a viable option in certain circumstances. Every effort should be made to remain within the spirit of the law if not the letter, but again, there may be exceptions. One should not place themselves above those s/he seeks to protect, for in doing so one loses the perspective necessary to remain empathic with them.

 

It’s short and not complete, but it gives you an idea of what I’m talking about. Some of my little guidelines leave room for interpretation, as was my intent. It may vary from person to person, culture to culture, but I believe I’ve captured the “gistâ€. Anyone can feel free to disagree, but it’s unlikely you can convince me that any of the above is false in referring to a superhero of any genre.

 

 

Well said, Vanguard, well said. (I'd give you more Rep, but I must "spread the luv around" first...)

 

Nice summation.

 

 

Mags

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Death, whether inflicted on others or on yourself in sacrifice, is so powerful, because it is the only true permanent thing. That is the basis behind this entire thread... is it ok to kill? Because there is no way to go back and fix that, if you are wrong. Death has drama and power only if you respect it's finality.

 

That's another trope I try to do away with in my games... death is not a revolving door. It is final and inescapable... so don't go there lightly.

I agree with you here, but I'm a fan of the "body was never found" plot device, which allows someone thought dead to return later. There are also those few, that if killed, aren't really alive in the first place so manager to return.

 

For the most part, however, if someone dies in one of my games, he stays that way. Of course, death isn't all that common, even in my death-is-okay campaign.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I think what you're saying is that no political ideology is inherently evil' date=' which is certainly a discussion for NGD... [/quote']

Not quite what I was saying, but I'll keep this for the NGD. It's hurting my head here.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

 

Why in the world would superhumans confine themselves by human standards?

 

See this is the real issue. The CvK issue is trying to apply human standards to non-human beings. It's like a group of dogs sitting around saying, "Because humans don't sniff butts when they greet each other, they are clearly not good beings."

 

That's a joke... but it makes my point. Ethics, morality, values... these are human concepts... they are created by human thoughts, implemented by human actions, and really only have meaning for human beings.

 

To understand rational humanism... to understand human ethics... is to understand the human condition... these values and ethics and morals are based on humans trying to meet human needs (security, food, shelter, fulfillment, the whole Maslow heirarchy) and are expressed through human constructs... law, religion, society, institutions, etc. These values and ethics and morals are attempts to communicate and propagate behavior that is "in the best interest of being human" (though clearly many of them are horribly misguided in this attempt.)

 

Superhumans (depending on their power suite, of course) are often beyond these things. When you don't need to eat or sleep... when you are not limited by natural elements or even gravity... when you can perceive the universe in ways that are totally theoretically approximated by a human... well, you aren't constrained by the Heirarchy of needs any longer... so human ethics/morality simply don't apply.

 

Now that isn't to say a character like Superman, indoctrinated in humanity from infancy, couldn't choose to try and "act" human, to apply human codes to themselves... and to us humans, this is a good thing... but it is beyond humans to really judge. For a human to judge a superhuman's actions, you can only attempt to apply some logic, based on the apparent needs that might apply to a metahuman... example... a metahuman may not need to eat, but there may still be a need to create social groups in order to fulfill their being... thus you could rate certain behaviors the impede/harm such social groups as unethical/immoral for that metahuman, because they are not in the best interest of the metahuman in question.

 

Thus... for all that... the term hero... a value term created by humans... really has no place in discussing metahumans. It's like trying to say a lion is heroic for hunting... or a chimpanzee saying we are unheroic because we don't engage in social grooming.

 

Hero can only apply to human beings taking human actions within the confines of the human condition (which IS our reality). We can appreciate a superhuman applying our codes of conduct to it's behavior... but that is still us applying our values... and really speaks not at all to the nature of that metahuman at all. We are incapable of truly evaluating and judging a metahuman, because we are not one.

 

 

Here's the rub, Neil: it doesn't matter what the Super's think about themselves. Its the normal, mundane populace which deems whether to call a superbeing a Superhero or not. Human beings make that distinction, not the superhumans.

 

I apologize for totally blowing your theory out of the water, because I normally agree with everything you write. That being said, your response was well written and would have made perfect sense but for the one glaring flaw.

 

Cheers!

 

Mags

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

However' date=' to address the actual point, it's the superhero who is applying the moral and ethical guide to their actions that make them a superhero. [/quote']

 

 

BINGO! You've just decided to really define "superhero" and this is important. Too much of the discussion around here has made assumptions on what a "superhero" really means.

 

What my longwinded point was getting to was this...

 

A "superhero" is a human concept. As you so well put it, as superhero is defined as "a metahuman/paranormal/superhuman who consciously decides to apply human morals/convictions/ethics to their actions, and attempt to live within human codes of conduct..." and then I add... "... EVEN THOUGH S/HE IS NOT HUMAN and therefore has no obligation to act that way."

 

To me, this is very important. It really gets to the heart of the matter. If a superhuman is not human... then they can choose to follows ethics or not... but they may do it for unfathomable reasons... all we can do is judge their actions/behaviors. It is impossible to every know someone's intent (though literature/fiction allows us inside the heads of others, this doesn't happen in real life) so everything we judge is based on what they did or said... their behavior. Nothing else matters.

 

Therefore... a superhero (a human concept, remember) is a label placed on those whose behavior conforms to what WE AS HUMANS wish a metahuman to do. Why they do it... we can never truly know, and it is pointless to debate... but what they do... what they say... that is the crux. If they act the way we want them to act, which is essentially in OUR best interest, whether or not it is theirs we don't know, then we call them a superhero. The label is essentially meaningless on the level of superhumanity, but very important to us humans.

 

If a superhero is so out of touch with humanity that they can no longer relate, are they really a superhero?

 

By your definition... not at all... but then I wasn't arguing that they were. I'm saying that the superhero concept must be properly, rigorously defined to have any meaning... but that meaning only applies to human interpretation, which as players is all that matters, but within the game world, the label superhero might mean nothing to a truly powrful metahuman. Their powers create a distance between them and humanity, which is something only rarely explored in comics, as there is an assumption that this distance is "bad." I personally find that exploring how being metahuman makes it hard to relate to humanity the more powerful you get, to be THE KEY REASON I roleplay. To have PCs that have grown so powerful over the years... to watch the players struggle with decisions, trying to keep a human perspective when their powers and abilities offer so many more options and possibilities... questioning whether ethics and morality even apply to them anymore... it's fascinating stuff.

 

As humans, we can only judge things as it relates to humans... so only metahumans that act within our codes of conduct/ethic/values can be considered a superhero. We just have to be careful, because humans are not very good at creating morals that are truly rational and truly support our human needs. We make short term, uninformed, snap decisions... emotionally charged and badly enacted... so we should really watch it when we try to judge the actions of a superhuman.

 

You wrote, "I still believe that empathy is necessary to be a superhero." For your definition, this is absolutely true. Empathy is a human valued response, so a metahuman using it would be "acting human" which is what we want... because we are human. I just find that to be very uninteresting as the "default condition" for RPGs. It is simply one small facet of metahuman role playing, not the "right way" or the "only way" as there is so much else to explore.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Here's the rub, Neil: it doesn't matter what the Super's think about themselves. Its the normal, mundane populace which deems whether to call a superbeing a Superhero or not. Human beings make that distinction, not the superhumans.

 

I apologize for totally blowing your theory out of the water, because I normally agree with everything you write. That being said, your response was well written and would have made perfect sense but for the one glaring flaw.

 

Cheers!

 

Mags

 

 

Actually, I think you kind of agreed with him. And I disagree, both with the idea and with the distinction between "humans" and "superhumans".

 

My earlier post explained my reasoning behind why I disagree, but in short I believe it's how the superhero thinks of himself that's important, not how he is perceived by others. He could be hated, feared, ignored, whatever, but if he's doing the right things for the right reasons, he's a superhero. And, almost by extension, those reasons have to align with the moral and ethical codes of those he is trying to protect. You don't hire policemen from other countries because they don't relate to the people they're trying to protect. Along similar lines, if a superhero doesn't relate to the people he's trying to protect then he's going to make mistakes, miscalculations, poor judgment calls, etc. They have to mesh, and the superhero cannot be separate and distinct from the "normal" populace.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Superhumans (depending on their power suite' date=' of course) are often beyond these things. When you don't need to eat or sleep... when you are not limited by natural elements or even gravity... when you can perceive the universe in ways that are totally theoretically approximated by a human... well, you aren't constrained by the Heirarchy of needs any longer... so human ethics/morality simply don't apply.[/quote']Could you explain what powers and abilities are required to exempt a being from human morality? Puny humans after all have the power to turn the surface of the Earth into a nuclear inferno but that does not mean they are above moral law. (If anything, I would hope that those so empowered are particularly moral people.)

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Here's the rub, Neil: it doesn't matter what the Super's think about themselves. Its the normal, mundane populace which deems whether to call a superbeing a Superhero or not. Human beings make that distinction, not the superhumans.

 

I apologize for totally blowing your theory out of the water, because I normally agree with everything you write. That being said, your response was well written and would have made perfect sense but for the one glaring flaw.

 

Cheers!

 

Mags

 

Nope... you interpreted my post exactly right... which is that the term superhero is meaningless to a metahuman. Therefore, if this is a game about role playing a metahuman, then the term superhero should be meaningless to our characters unless one of the chooses to consciously apply this code of ethical behavior to themselves... and exploring why they would do that... what are the benefits and detriments... that is exactly why I game. See the post I wrote, following yours.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Very well thought out points, but this is a discussion about "Champions:The Superhero role playing game" not precisely about "metahuman" role playing. That something more along the lines of Aberrant. Basically, RDU Neil I think you're getting a little deep for the genre here.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually, I think you kind of agreed with him. And I disagree, both with the idea and with the distinction between "humans" and "superhumans".

 

 

Actually, I did disagree. I countered Neil's post on his terms and didn't feel the need to raise any other issues.

 

I don't think that humans and superhuman (not counting aliens, beasties and such) are separate when it comes to morals and codes of conduct, but I do feel that there is a separation in power and perceived power.

 

Yes, the supers must follow a moral code to be deemed worthy of the term Superhero, but the term is defined by what humans call hero, not what the superbeing calls hero. That was my point.

 

Mags