Code VS Killing Poll

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Then you would get what has happened with D&D, which has come its own genre, rather than being a reflection of anything else.

 

I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it's not what most people who play superhero role-playing games want.

 

Hmmmm... good point. That goes to a whole 'nother discussion about play expectations and play styles. In my mind, this is EXACTLY what I want in my games... to move away from the conventions of comics, to deconstruct them, to use only the ones that make sense and forget the rest. To take the concepts hinted at in comics, inspired by comics... and do it better! (IMO, of course.) I'm very much a polar opposite in play style from the genre fiend type... though I don't know what you'd call me. (MAD! I'd call you MAD!!)

 

It would be interesting to see what folks think. Maybe do a poll. Are most people really about "emulating comics" or are they more about "telling their own stories, inspired by the idea of the superhuman?" Probably not a very effective way of phrasing that... but I dunno... probably not a good polling question anyway. Too many times I've talked at length with a player before they join our group, and the swear up and down that they are looking forward to a different kind of metahuman game... but then are really frustrated when I challenge or undermine a classic genre trope.

 

Not that I agree with it, but to avoid issues like I'd have with someone like Worldmaker, I call my game "metahuman role playing" not "superhero" just to avoid setting up Four Color expectations.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

My feelings on Cvk reflect my personal beleifs. Killing another sentient beings should NEVER be an easy descision or done without feeling. That's a fiction inspired by movies, role playing and video games. I've known people that have killed. It changes you regardless of the situation. And if (mind you, IF) you are playing a "realistic" game that deals with death that should be reflected. Someone who can kill and feel nothing, not even one iota remorse even if the person they killed was "bad" is mentally disturbed IMO. Taking a life is a big deal and something I honestly hope most people, in real life, would have issues with before and after. Yes, they are hardened remoseless killers in the world but they are hardly the type of people I would hold up as Heroes.

 

Now, if you want indulge in escapist fantasies where the heros fly about killing the irredeembably evil bad guys and cleasning the world thats cool. Its when that sort of thing is being tossed around as the ONLY morally correct way to act. Yeah, I think I would hesistate to kill someone unless under extreme duress even if they "evil". No, I don't think that makes me a "moral coward" just a human being with a consious. I would feel like I was not much better than a serial killer if I could do something as extreme as end a life without a moment's thought.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Hmmmm... good point. That goes to a whole 'nother discussion about play expectations and play styles. In my mind, this is EXACTLY what I want in my games... to move away from the conventions of comics, to deconstruct them, to use only the ones that make sense and forget the rest. To take the concepts hinted at in comics, inspired by comics... and do it better! (IMO, of course.) I'm very much a polar opposite in play style from the genre fiend type... though I don't know what you'd call me. (MAD! I'd call you MAD!!)

 

It would be interesting to see what folks think. Maybe do a poll. Are most people really about "emulating comics" or are they more about "telling their own stories, inspired by the idea of the superhuman?" Probably not a very effective way of phrasing that... but I dunno... probably not a good polling question anyway. Too many times I've talked at length with a player before they join our group, and the swear up and down that they are looking forward to a different kind of metahuman game... but then are really frustrated when I challenge or undermine a classic genre trope.

 

Not that I agree with it, but to avoid issues like I'd have with someone like Worldmaker, I call my game "metahuman role playing" not "superhero" just to avoid setting up Four Color expectations.

We seem to be very much on the same wavelength here RDU. I have to say though that I believe you are not doing yourself any favours by playing semantic games just to avoid issues with people. Here, you can just ignore such people; in a gaming group I suspect the issues would come up anyway. I mean, you might say 'I'm playing a metahuman rpg', but then surely the first question you'd get would be 'What does that mean?' The result of this would surely be that you'd have to explain it by reference to 4-colour expectations that you are setting out to challenge, which would put you back to square one. If you're going to be at square one anyway, then it seems to me to be a waste of energy avoiding dealing with what that entails.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The problem I have with Wanderer's opinions regarding what a true hero is (that is, "someone who is willing do do what it takes to make things right with the world, regardless of how many people get hurt in the process and ignoring such irrelevancies as morality and law") is that this is the sort of justification Hitler used for having millions of people shoved into ovens; that Stalin used for starving half his country to death; that Pol Pot used to turn human beings into fertilizer.

 

Sorry, but to me that's about as far as you can get from being a hero. He thinks that my ideals are stupid? If he's the alternative I'll gladly remain stupid, thank you very much.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

My feelings on Cvk reflect my personal beleifs. Killing another sentient beings should NEVER be an easy descision or done without feeling. That's a fiction inspired by movies, role playing and video games. I've known people that have killed. It changes you regardless of the situation. And if (mind you, IF) you are playing a "realistic" game that deals with death that should be reflected. Someone who can kill and feel nothing, not even one iota remorse even if the person they killed was "bad" is mentally disturbed IMO. Taking a life is a big deal and something I honestly hope most people, in real life, would have issues with before and after. Yes, they are hardened remoseless killers in the world but they are hardly the type of people I would hold up as Heroes.

 

Now, if you want indulge in escapist fantasies where the heros fly about killing the irredeembably evil bad guys and cleasning the world thats cool. Its when that sort of thing is being tossed around as the ONLY morally correct way to act. Yeah, I think I would hesistate to kill someone unless under extreme duress even if they "evil". No, I don't think that makes me a "moral coward" just a human being with a consious. I would feel like I was not much better than a serial killer if I could do something as extreme as end a life without a moment's thought.

 

 

Specifically you wrote..

Killing another sentient beings should NEVER be an easy descision or done without feeling.

 

In what way has anyone of us indicated that killing someone (in a game or reality) is done easily and without feeling? The whole point to my games is to explore such issues... "Do you kill? If so, why? How does it change you, the world around you? Was it justified? Does that matter? Can you live with yourself afterwards?"

 

This is exactly what my games deal with (among all the other issues as well) and I can't see how you can explore them if you create a game with the #1 rule being "No Killing!" I'm not saying you only challenge the person who is totally adverse to killing... no I'm saying you challenge him and the guy who plays the kill-happy psycho to examine their attitudes and beliefs through the very safe, if complex and intense, mode of role playing. "Act as you see fit!" I say... "And be prepared for the consequences!"

 

For the most part, this kind of examination goes to show that no "absolute" belief is effective. Life and it's RPG simulations are shades of context and situation and scale. What is wrong in one instance is correct in another. The right thing to do may cost you dearly, and the wrong thing may benefit you... that's life. To set some absolute axiom of good and evil, right and wrong... it simply is logically impossible. Rational ethics has to have flexibility, because life, as much as many people wish it were otherwise, doesn't have clear cut rules. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes (except maybe Universal Heat Death/Entropy... and that's still only theory).

 

Holding to your convictions often means that things don't go your way. Doesn't mean that your conviction was wrong... just that it didn't work out this time. As long as you are willing to take responsibility for your actions/non-actions based on your convictions... fine. What I despise is people saying, "Do it my way... or you are wrong!" That leads to nothing more than wars of the extreme... like say a right wing evangelical government imposing self-righteous pre-emptive violence on those they disagree with vs. medieval minded religious fanatics imposing their psychotic sense of righteousness with acts of terrorist violence.

 

I mean, can you imagine living in a world where you are caught between those extremes? Scares me to death. I'd rather work for a more rational, ethical world... but that's just me.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

We seem to be very much on the same wavelength here RDU. I have to say though that I believe you are not doing yourself any favours by playing semantic games just to avoid issues with people. Here' date=' you can just ignore such people; in a gaming group I suspect the issues would come up anyway. I mean, you might say 'I'm playing a metahuman rpg', but then surely the first question you'd get would be 'What does that mean?' The result of this would surely be that you'd have to explain it by reference to 4-colour expectations that you are setting out to challenge, which would put you back to square one. If you're going to be at square one anyway, then it seems to me to be a waste of energy avoiding dealing with what that entails. [/quote']

 

Better that they start with a question, than with an unfounded assumption, that's all.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Better that they start with a question' date=' than with an unfounded assumption, that's all.[/quote']That makes some sense I have to say. Perhaps I'm just more bloody minded than you then!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Hugh' date=' not trying to pick on you or anything. My original post was clarifying that Total Comittment level means just that. I never meant to imply that a Player can take it and try to resist it. I was implying the opposite, that the Player shouldn't take Total Comittment if his concept didn't require/need/warrant such a severe level.[/quote']

 

Sorry; I did understand your point and I was agreeing with you for the most part, but I wasn't clear. To me, there is no Psych Lim the character absolutely cannot overcome, but "Total Commitment" means more than just "Any time I make my EGO roll at -5, then I can ignore it" (which, from some posts, seems to be a common playstyle). I can't think of a player in my campaign who has ever asked to roll against a Total psych lim (or any, off the top of my head).

 

ASIDE: Maybe these should be flat rolls of 11-, 8- and 5-, rather than being easier for high ego characters to violate their psych limits. In addition to making these less limiting if you have a high ego, aren't high ego people more sure of themselves, and have the courage of their convictions? Should that make it easier to voilate your principals?

 

Now if the character takes a Moderate level' date=' then he can roll to his heart's content. The roll itself is what slightly disadvantages the character, since sometimes he will fail his roll. However, if the Player also bought his EGO up, then disadvantage value goes away and the Player recieves no points for that Disadvantage.[/quote']

 

Here we disagree. First off, this approach basically prohibits a mentalist taking moderate psych lim's. Hey, how often will you miss a roll with a 30 Ego? I expect players to treat psych lims as more than just a mechanic that says "I have to roll before I can do this. If I miss my roll, I try again next phase." Now, for a "Moderate", there are more times they can reasonably say "I'll try to rein in my distaste", but a character who is, say "Curious, Moderate" should not, in my view, be rolling every time he comes across a situation which should trigger his curiosity. You took the limitation - role play it.

 

Now if a character does have Total and violates it' date=' then I usually replace that Disadvantage with another equal value one (as per the rules suggestion) and the character suffers the consequences of his actions. The better he roleplays this, the faster the consequences are mitigated. And regaining that particular Disadvantage would be nearly impossible. But that's just in my game.[/quote']

 

I'm not a lot looser, but I can see a character with a Total Code (and I would put Superman and Cap in this categpry) being faced with extreme circumstances which force them to violate their principals. This has happened for each of these characters, and in both case because other psych lim's ("protective of innocents" would be the best definition, I think) kicked in opposing the Code vs Killing.

 

Now, unless the GM places the character in a situation where he is really, seriously forced to reconsider his Code, I expect he'll abide by it. If not, he gets to buy it down, or off, and probably gets a poor RP penalty as well (consider it interest on the points you borrowed with a psych limit you weren't going to abide being limited by). "Great inconvenience" isn't enough to justify violating a total limitation, but I'm reluctant to say it's impossible to see a circumstance where the character can try to briefly circumvent his limitation.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

 

In what way has anyone of us indicated that killing someone (in a game or reality) is done easily and without feeling? The whole point to my games is to explore such issues... "Do you kill? If so, why? How does it change you, the world around you? Was it justified? Does that matter? Can you live with yourself afterwards?"

 

I was expressing my feelings about comics like The Authority and games that emuate that feel, not commenting on your game in particular as I know nothing about it. The only person so far that has expressed a desire for seemingly remorseless killing is Wanderer.

 

This is exactly what my games deal with (among all the other issues as well) and I can't see how you can explore them if you create a game with the #1 rule being "No Killing!" I'm not saying you only challenge the person who is totally adverse to killing... no I'm saying you challenge him and the guy who plays the kill-happy psycho to examine their attitudes and beliefs through the very safe, if complex and intense, mode of role playing. "Act as you see fit!" I say... "And be prepared for the consequences!"

 

And that is great. I have no problem with that. They both have psych lims and they both should be challenged. I never said otherwise. Its not personally my bag to get that heavy but if you and your players are having fun that's all the matters.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I don't think it is fair to say that the heroes in The Authority kill without feeling. Easily, yes, but even then, only when the price of killing no-one is that more people will die overall in the end. What is lacking in the heroes' attitude towards killing is angst and crocodile tears. They know what they are doing and why, and don't beat themselves up about the consequences. This is not the same as saying that they kill without feeling. That feeling is depicted in the comic, but unlike classic 4-colour comics, personal moral dramas of the 'to kill or not to kill' sort are not the staple of the comic.

 

What I like about this myself is that it makes the heroes both like and unlike real world politicians. Like- in terms of their pragmatism; unlike- because crocodile tears are as much second nature to politicians as is lying. What the heroes in The Authority also have in common with real world politicians is that they are making decisions which can affect humanity as a whole. Surely it is not too much to suggest that decisions of that magnitude cannot be taken using the same moral yardsticks as those that might affect only a handful of people?

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I don't think it is fair to say that the heroes in The Authority kill without feeling. Easily' date=' yes, but even then, only when the price of killing no-one is that more people will die overall in the end. What [i']is[/i] lacking in the heroes' attitude towards killing is angst and crocodile tears. QUOTE]

 

What you see as "angst and crocodile tears", I see as moral dilema, questioning your action and, well, basically not being a hardened borderline psycho. I've read pretty much every issue of that series. The characters kill without hesistation or thought. Its their first and (often only) reaction to a threat. Lethal force. They never even try to do anything less or different even when they so clearly outclass their opponents they don't particularly have to kill them (given their seemingly cosmic powers that's pretty often). What really struck me was when they were replaced by the "evil Authority" for awhile, aside for having a somewhat different agenda I couldn't tell any major difference in their attitudes about taking life.

 

But yeah, I'm just a stupid idealist with silly romantic notions so I'll just agree to disagree.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I don't think it is fair to say that the heroes in The Authority kill without feeling. Easily' date=' yes, but even then, only when the price of killing no-one is that more people will die overall in the end. What [i']is[/i] lacking in the heroes' attitude towards killing is angst and crocodile tears. They know what they are doing and why, and don't beat themselves up about the consequences. This is not the same as saying that they kill without feeling. That feeling is depicted in the comic, but unlike classic 4-colour comics, personal moral dramas of the 'to kill or not to kill' sort are not the staple of the comic.

 

 

The psychopathic little tin gods in The Authority... calling them "heroes" is incorrect because they are not heroes in any sense of the word... kill casually and without remorse. In recent issues, Midnighter said he wanted to kill something just because he was having a bad day. So he went out and killed people.

 

Just because he was having a bad day.

 

I do that, they call me a psychopath and either lock me up for the rest of my life or stick a needle in my arm. He does that, you call him a "hero".

 

None of those characters are heroes. Saying they are is an insult to heroes everywhere.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

What you see as "angst and crocodile tears", I see as moral dilema, questioning your action and, well, basically not being a hardened borderline psycho. I've read pretty much every issue of that series. The characters kill without hesistation or thought. Its their first and (often only) reaction to a threat. Lethal force. They never even try to do anything less or different even when they so clearly outclass their opponents they don't particularly have to kill them (given their seemingly cosmic powers that's pretty often). What really struck me was when they were replaced by the "evil Authority" for awhile, aside for having a somewhat different agenda I couldn't tell any major difference in their attitudes about taking life.

 

But yeah, I'm just a stupid idealist with silly romantic notions so I'll just agree to disagree.

There's no need to be so defensive nexus, though I must say that it is odd the way you put it, since "stupid idealist with silly romantic notions" is more-or-less what some might call me!

 

Anyhoo, I'd rather not derail this thread into another discussion about The Authority (of which I am a fan just to make myself clear). I just wanted to clarify the 'angst and crocodile tears' point. I guess the 'angst' bit is aimed at classic 4-colour comics, but the 'crocodile tears' bit wasn't. It was aimed at the real world, at politicians' agonising over their own decisions to deploy lethal force on a large scale.

 

I made this remark because I think that the extreme passions aroused by one of the crucial features of The Authority (namely their use of and attitude to lethal force) derive their strength as much from the metaphorical content of this theme as much as its violation of classic 4-colour morality. That is to say: The Authority takes characters with no vested interests (because they came from nowhere), with powers to change the world, and with a vision of how to use those powers to go about doing so. What we then see is these characters saying things not unlike contemporary politicians, but actually then going on and doing something about it. This fact- that the heroes in The Authority are talk and action- is one of the things that appeals to its many fans. I am suggesting that the less than flattering light that this casts on our real leaders is what makes this theme of The Authority so intolerable to its detractors.

 

And as for the attitude to violence of the false and real Authority... Well, the first point is that the false Authority were just cynical self-servers prepared to say and do whatever it took to continue drawing their paycheque from the powers that be who had decided that the real Authority could no longer be tolerated. Plus you do seem to be forgetting the incident when the false Authority dumped a whole bunch of refugees in the Carrier out into the bleed. Does this not speak of a different attitude towards violence? In other words, I don't accept that the comic supports your contention.

 

So, to bring this back on topic: the Authority is a relevant example of what we're discussing re. the moral content of different superheroic sub-genres because it is the archetypal contemporary example of the post-4-colour style (AFAIK). What interests so many of us in this material is that it short circuits the all-too-familiar gap between rhetoric and reality, while giving a whole new spin to the classic trope of power and responsibility.

 

Look at it like this: imagine a game in which your superheroes (you are a player) get sent back to Germany in the 1920's, in which you find yourself to be as powerful, relatively speaking, as the Authority are in their setting. What would you want to do as a player? Defeat some minor villain but leave the status quo as is with the result that the Nazis still take power and WW2 still ensues? Or would you do what it takes to destroy the Nazi leadership and really change history? If I were the GM, the choice would be yours.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

And as for the attitude to violence of the false and real Authority... Well' date=' the first point is that the false Authority were just cynical self-servers prepared to say and do whatever it took to continue drawing their paycheque from the powers that be who had decided that the real Authority could no longer be tolerated. Plus you do seem to be forgetting the incident when the false Authority dumped a whole bunch of refugees in the Carrier out into the bleed. Does this not speak of a different attitude towards violence? In other words, I don't accept that the comic supports your contention.[/quote']

 

Well, they did think all the refugees where dead when they did it, they were getting rid of the bodies. When they found out where living people among them most of them weren't really distrubed by the idea and where kind of "Oh well." A bit like what the Doctor must have been thinking about any potential innocents when he sank Sliding Italy. Not quite the same thing, but I don't think that one incident indicates any vast gulf in their behavior. Overall they did the same things the Authority did, slaughter people at their whim to progress their interests without a hint of hesistation or remorse. The fake Authority just served different masters/goals they were remorseless killers all the same, they just worked for The Man. They used the same tactics and methods even how they behaved in their "off hours" was distrubingly similar.

 

Look at it like this: imagine a game in which your superheroes (you are a player) get sent back to Germany in the 1920's, in which you find yourself to be as powerful, relatively speaking, as the Authority are in their setting. What would you want to do as a player? Defeat some minor villain but leave the status quo as is with the result that the Nazis still take power and WW2 still ensues? Or would you do what it takes to destroy the Nazi leadership and really change history? If I were the GM, the choice would be yours.

 

Wings of Valkeryie, one of the most contriversial modules for a super hero game ever.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

What if we get one wrong? (oh' date=' oops - things were not what they appeared with that new costumed "killer") Does Batman kill himself in remorse (or as the ultimate expression of justice for murderers), or does that get rationalized as "acceptable casualties"?[/quote']When doctors make mistakes, sometimes people die. That doesn't mean they give up medicine.

 

I guess they must rationalize it as acceptable casualties then.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The psychopathic little tin gods in The Authority... calling them "heroes" is incorrect because they are not heroes in any sense of the word... kill casually and without remorse. In recent issues, Midnighter said he wanted to kill something just because he was having a bad day. So he went out and killed people.

 

Just because he was having a bad day.

 

I do that, they call me a psychopath and either lock me up for the rest of my life or stick a needle in my arm. He does that, you call him a "hero".

 

None of those characters are heroes. Saying they are is an insult to heroes everywhere.

 

Who did he kill?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was not aware that the threat of death, etc., were eliminated by CVK. In fact, a hero with a code against killing psych lim is more endangered. He has to find less lethal ways to stop villainy than may be at his or her disposal. Often the hero put him- or herself in much more danger in protecting others from harm.

 

Plenty of heroes have questioned their actions. They wonder why they even try when they can't save everyone. They question whether they are abusing their power. They question their own motives. And they do question their actions when they have abused their powers. The CVK doesn't prevent this. It enables it.

 

And as to others' questioning their actions, that's also definitely going to happen thanks to the CVK. "Why didn't you kill him? He murdered my father! You coward!" "Your reckless antics in what you call heroism could have ended in many more deaths! You and your ilk are a threat to society!" Or when the CVK causes the hero to hesitate a second too long: "Why'd you let him kill her?! What were you thinking? You should have killed him when you had the chance!"

 

I really don't think we're that far removed from one another, but there may be a gap of miscommunication between us.

 

Cat

My agruement wasn't even concerning CVK, but the type of game where "superheroes don't kill". There's a big difference between the type of stories/campaigns you describe here, and the classic 4 color comic.

 

For the record, I think that superheroes shouldn't kill, and in game where it's an option, I'll usually take a total CVK if I'm playing. I like the drama of it. I also don't allow myself to get free points either by taking NNDs and the like. I want my character to think twice before opening up full blast on some new guy. A CVK doesn't mean crap if you can't kill, whether it be due to your powers or the campaign.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Wings of Valkeryie' date=' one of the most contriversial modules for a super hero game over. [/quote']Never heard of it. Is it still available?

 

Anyhow, I think you might agree nexus that such a scenario brings right to the fore the issues that are at the heart of this whole debate. The 4-colour world is, generally speaking, one where superheroes of any power level can do what they like in their little section of the world, but that world remains more or less the one that we are familiar with. The alternative (inaugurated by Alan Moore AFAIK) is a world where superheroes, just like ordinary people, have opinions about the various social and political problems that beset society; but, unlike ordinary people, have powers as individuals to do something about this, and choose to exercise those powers in that direction.

 

I think we can both (all?) agree that this is a fair (if incomplete) summary of the point(s) at issue, yes?

 

So, what some of us are asking is this: exactly how heroic is it to have great powers, but completely to ignore the sufferings of humanity when you choose to exercise those powers? Or, to be more precise: what rationale can there be to deny to such characters the status of hero just because they don't exhibit the morality of classic 4-colour characters. I mean, this was a morality which was, after all, predicated on these characters largely avoiding taking any stands on real world issues, because the comics publishers by and large preferred to ignore them themselves.

 

After all, we all know (regardless of how we feel about it) that killing and heroic status are not incompatible in the real world. So why should they be incompatible in the world of superhero comics? And we all know too, that this 4-colour world and its attendant morality is not an objective definition of the superhero genre in general, neither now nor in history.

 

So why is it then that this issue raises such heat? Why are some people finding it so difficult to swallow comics and games in which the superhero genre is expanded by the injection of a slight dose of real world issues and their attendant moral quandries, albeit filtered through the utterly unreal presuppositions of a world containing superpowered beings? Without in the slightest trying to point an accusing finger, I can only say that there is a well-defined name for this kind of thing: escapism.

 

If that floats your boat, then that's fine by me. If it doesn't float mine, then what's all the fussing about? Hmm?

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Who did he kill?

No one AFAIK. I've just checked back through recent issues, and the only thing I've found that is close to what Worldmaker is on about is in #10, where he expresses his desire to "Hit something," then goes on to add, "The problem is... Sometimes there's nothing to hit." An expression of frustration not unique to "psychopathic little tin gods" I'll warrant.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I know you posted this as a specific response to another, and it doesn't much pertain to any of my own arguements, but...

I find extremely annoying when in discussions about ethics' date=' conscience, and morality, either in RL or in geeky fictional worlds, one raises abiding to laws as an argument. Obeying to laws, and the dictates of one's conscience should ever be wholly separate issues. They interface in so many important ways, but laws should never ever be a substitute for conscience and morality. [/quote']

I agree with this entirely. Laws have nothing to do with morality. Some laws may be based in moral and ethical issues (such as that of murder, stealing, etc.) but in and of themselves aren't moral or ethical.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Never heard of it. Is it still available?

 

It was pulled shortly after release, but I think you can still find copies of it.

 

I don't have a problem with real world issues. I don't really have a problem with Supers who are forced to kill. Some of the villians in the Authority, had they shown up in in a game I was playing eventually my character would have tried to kill them as well. What I have issue with is how they killed and how they reacted to it. I don't deny the Authority the label of Hero because they have killed but how they do it. That they come across as just as facist and bloodthirsty as half the people they put down. That they are extremely flawed human beings that do not seem to even try to rise above it. Sometimes in that book its hard to tell them from the antagonists. The book had potential when it started, but its slowly gone downhill, particularly after the death of Jenny Sparks and the team seemed to lose its slight moral compass.

 

I think comics like The Authority are escapism as well, but that's a rant for thread.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It was pulled shortly after release, but I think you can still find copies of it.

 

I don't have a problem with real world issues. I don't really have a problem with Supers who are forced to kill. Some of the villians in the Authority, had they shown up in in a game I was playing eventually my character would have tried to kill them as well. What I have issue with is how they killed and how they reacted to it. I don't deny the Authority the label of Hero because they have killed but how they do it. That they come across as just as facist and bloodthirsty as half the people they put down. That they are extremely flawed human beings that do not seem to even try to rise above it. Sometimes in that book its hard to tell them from the antagonists. The book had potential when it started, but its slowly gone downhill, particularly after the death of Jenny Sparks and the team seemed to lose its slight moral compass.

 

I think comics like The Authority are escapism as well, but that's a rant for thread.

Fair points, well put nexus, but I'm not going to answer them any further than that because I really don't want to be responsible for turning this thread into another 'The Authority sucks yay or nay?' thread. OK?

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

As near as I can tell, just about everyone agrees that heroes SHOULDN'T kill (i.e. try and find another way before resorting to lethal force), and most agree that SOME heroes WON'T kill no matter what, and most of you agree that SOME heroes kill way too much (and thus, to some, aren't heroes)...

 

So...what's the debate over again? People's definition of a hero? Almost by definition that's going to vary from person to person. An individual's morality, ethics, perception of the world around them, experiences, etc, are going to shape their feelings over when it might be justified to kill. The same can be said of PCs to a certain extent, but obviously the player's own views will color that greatly.

 

I think the collection of differing view points expressed thus far would make for some interesting RP were these same view points to be expressed in-game.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Fair points' date=' well put nexus, but I'm not going to answer them any further than that because I really don't want to be responsible for turning this thread into another 'The Authority sucks yay or nay?' thread. OK? [/quote']

 

 

Fair enough. There is one plotline I've wanted to see done in The Authority. How it worked out would go a long way towards either "redeeming" them in my opinion or dismissing them out of hand.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The problem I have with Wanderer's opinions regarding what a true hero is (that is, "someone who is willing do do what it takes to make things right with the world, regardless of how many people get hurt in the process and ignoring such irrelevancies as morality and law") is that this is the sort of justification Hitler used for having millions of people shoved into ovens; that Stalin used for starving half his country to death; that Pol Pot used to turn human beings into fertilizer.

 

Sorry, but to me that's about as far as you can get from being a hero. He thinks that my ideals are stupid? If he's the alternative I'll gladly remain stupid, thank you very much.

I don't think that's what Wanderer was saying...

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure of it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Wanderer(or maybe you already have, I'm still catching up on posts), but I believe you were just saying that superheroes will do what necessary to make thing right. Obviously, ignoring morality, by definition, couldn't be part of "making things right."