Code VS Killing Poll

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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."

 

Perhaps, but he has made some interesting examples. Such as his crusader flying around blowing polluting factories. When the economic damage that would do was pointed out he placed it in the catagory of acceptable. Pretty much his reaction to any misery his activist heroes created. "Greater Good" "omlette and eggs" etc.

[Blue]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yup, no doubt about it, to me (and my fellow players) it's the shades of gray that make things fun.

 

Current game (Non-superheroic): We're trying to save the world. Think Call of Cthulhu. Now no one has any compunctions about blowing away the hideous horrors from beyond. Then there are the cultists and their leaders and those criminals who feed into the cult conspiracy by supplying illegal items. Are they fair game? Arresting them is not an option because the world doesn't think this stuff is really going on. So what is the alternative?

 

One side (who have a high compassion stat) insist on trying to do everything humanely. The the others in the group believe in expediency because this is all about the end of the world and stopping it. So we end up with arguments every game, which everyone enjoys

 

Interestingly enough, my character is the only one so far who has capitulated. He's highly compasssionate, but now he's starting to do things like burn Willpower to ignore the situation and do what needs done. I've decided he's going to dive heavily into the dark side of the moral dilemma and probably end up guilt ridden and possibly alcoholic.

 

One game left in the campaign, so it's show time.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

One game left in the campaign' date=' so it's show time.[/quote']

 

Is the game Exalted? Just curious.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'm reading this thread and all I can think is that some of you are confusing vigilantes with heroes, now that we have murder vs. killing defined finally and everyone is on the same page with that.

 

Every example I've seen in this thread of a 'Superhero who kills' has really been a vigilante. Vigilates are not heroes. Their whole MO is killing and revenge, which is not superhero behavior.

 

So for this discussion of 'Superheroes don't murder/ Superheroes shouldn't kill', let's please stick with examples of actual Superheroes, ok guys? It'll make things go easier.

 

Mags

[Blue]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Is the game Exalted? Just curious.

I tried to sell the GM on exalted, but he didn't get around to buying it then. So instead he bastardized a whole bunch of Wold-of-Darkness sources to make his own character creation and world.

 

Funny thing is, he has since bought exalted and now wants to run another game.

 

We're basically playing in the modern world and we are (sort of) mages. Gratefully we haven't met any angst-riddled vampires. But we have met a lot of cthuloid horrors, cultists, and one werewolf (that we changed back to human by breaking a curse; She's now my retainer and my PC's girlfriend). So it's sort of Sorcerer-meets-Cthulhu.

 

(I'm excited about next campaign. I get to dust off my kobold thief, Sneaky Jeb, for the monster campaign's return! You can bet there will be no shades of gray there )

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

We are veering away from the subject, but I'll respond to this anyway.

 

I think you are misreading the purpose of permitting an Ego roll to overcome a psychological limitation. Not that the examples you give do not exist among real players. What I am saying is these are not examples of how such a roll would be used appropriately. Here is an example from a TV show: Monk (currently showing on the USA Network).

 

Monk idolizes Willie Nelson. He would love to be able to play the clarinet with Willie Nelson on a song. As a result of his sleuthing exploits, he gets that chance, and is all ready to play. A musician hands monk the clarinet, but blows through the mouthpiece first. Monk, a neurotic germophobe, is horrified, but he tries to play the clarinet anyway. He tries to force himself to put his mouth on the clarinet, but he can't being himself to do so.

 

To put this into a game context, if a character knows that her Psych Lim (call it a prejudice, a conviction, a compulsion, or anything else) is preventing her from doing something (or forcing her to do it), and she knows that the outcome will be worse as a result, she can (and probably should) try to overcome that.

 

Say that Power Patriot was ordered to urinate on the American flag, or else a school bus full of nuns would get incinerated. Power Patriot has a strong psych lim to defend the helpless, but he has a total psych lim about being a fanatical super-patriot. What does he do?

 

This is why we assign dice rolls to these traits (althoiugh if the character found a way to resolve the situation without violating either psych lim, I'd probably grant him an extra point of experience).

 

Part of the problem is that the game system does not make a distinction between mental traits the characters doesn't want (fear of heights, for example), and mental traits that the character does want (fanatical patriotism, for example). It is entirely reasonable that the character might, from time to time, actively try to overcome the former (and they should fail most of the time, consistent with however many points they got for the Disad). It is harder to justify attempting to overcome the latter.

 

(Perhaps someone else can tie this into the Code Vs. Killing thing.)

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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.

 

Agreed. The great pity is that some GMs would not allow these points to be expressed in-game.

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Here we disagree. First off' date=' 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.[/quote']

Actually, I intended some irony in that one statement that obviously didn't come across as I intended. I agree with your sentiment here. When I respond to these kind of posts, I presume the Player is a good one. You are focusing on Players that don't. My post wasn't addressing those type of players. So I understand the confusion, my fault. (8^D)

 

My point was that if the character is taking a Disad to get points and trys to circumvent the disad in a subtle way, he ends up with no extra points and his reason for taking the disad has been removed. If the Player wanted it anyway for zero points, thus good roleplaying, I wouldn't be bothered by the rolling of dice often. (8^D)

 

However, I think the Moderate level is a little looser than what you take it as, and that's fine. I figure that Moderate level should be very loose, in that the roll required anyway succeeds most of the time for those with even normal EGO. So I see it more a of defiining a general attitude where circumstances can easily influence the character to make different decision that his norm.

 

Just My Humble Opinion.

 

Oh, almost missed and important point. Per the rules, you only get one roll to succeed at something. You may only roll again if the situation has somehow been changed to improve you chances, then you may roll again. So the Player who tries the whole "I keep rolling until I succeed" may be waiting centuries for his next chance. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was expressing my feelings about comics like The Authority and games that emuate that feel' date='[/quote']

 

Ah, the Authority. Now there's an interesting superhero comic.

 

For those who have not read the title (and I haven't read it myself in the last year or so, so things may well have changed since then), The Authority are superheroes who decided that treating the symptoms was not enough: they needed to cure the disease. This mean that sometimes they use lethal force. They don't (usually) use it indiscriminantly, but when it's warranted, they don't hold back.

 

In essence, they are one possible answer to the question, "What would the Justice League be like if they took their moral mandate seriously but didn't consider the status quo to be sacrosanct?" In the moral spectrum I think they'd fall somewhere mid-way between the X-Men and the Punisher. No starry-eyed do-gooders these, but still, they are clearly superheroes, rather than costumed serial killers like Frank Castle.

 

The only person so far that has expressed a desire for seemingly remorseless killing is Wanderer.

 

You could be correct, but I have not interpreted Wanderer's comments to mean that.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Ah, the Authority. Now there's an interesting superhero comic.

 

For those who have not read the title (and I haven't read it myself in the last year or so, so things may well have changed since then), The Authority are superheroes who decided that treating the symptoms was not enough: they needed to cure the disease. This mean that sometimes they use lethal force. They don't (usually) use it indiscriminantly, but when it's warranted, they don't hold back.

 

The books has, IMO, gone downhill.

 

I've never seen them NOT kill who they were fighting. Its not sometimes. Its most of the time. As far as I can recall, they've killed everyone they've actually engaged in combat and all their tactics involve lethal force.

 

A quote, which I admit made me giggle at the time "Hurry up, guys, I'm running out of creative ways to kill supervillians!" Its pretty accurate. The comic itself supports this world view with things like "Alternate Earth 666" a dark world where superheroes didn't kill their opponents and thus were all completely destroyed...

 

If they had some non lethal combat before I started reading I can't say I can only comment on issues that I have seen. I stopped reading for awhile but a friend of mine started showing me issues about the time the Authority overthrew the US government and installed themselves as "temporary" rulers of the county.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

For those who have not read the title (and I haven't read it myself in the last year or so' date=' so things may well have changed since then), [i']The Authority[/i] are superheroes who decided that treating the symptoms was not enough: they needed to cure the disease. This mean that sometimes they use lethal force. They don't (usually) use it indiscriminantly, but when it's warranted, they don't hold back.

The Authority is on my regular order bblackmoor, so I can tell you that nothing much has changed about the comic you sum up so aptly.

 

In essence, they are one possible answer to the question, "What would the Justice League be like if they took their moral mandate seriously but didn't consider the status quo to be sacrosanct?" In the moral spectrum I think they'd fall somewhere mid-way between the X-Men and the Punisher. No starry-eyed do-gooders these, but still, they are clearly superheroes, rather than costumed serial killers like Frank Castle.

That's an interesting interpretation of the comic, particularly re. the status of the status quo (yes, I did write that on purpose!). I can't comment on the JLA comparison, since I don't read that comic.

 

You could be correct, but I have not interpreted Wanderer's comments to mean that.

Me neither, but I could've missed something I guess.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Who did he kill?

 

A series of indistinguishable mooks in an unidentified Asian army.

 

 

Has anyone else noticed how many times the people getting murdered by these so called "heroic" serial killers are Oriental?

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Wanderer(or maybe you already have' date=' 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."[/quote']

 

 

He (Wanderer) has in the past said that a true superhero would do things like sink whaling ships because they are evil, destroy polluting factories, because they are evil, and slaughter wholesale those governments which do things that Wanderer considers evil.

 

(BTW, he's expressly said that the entire US government would then go on the chopping block...)

 

So consider yourself corrected, Raven Sorry about that.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

A series of indistinguishable mooks in an unidentified Asian army.

 

 

Has anyone else noticed how many times the people getting murdered by these so called "heroic" serial killers are Oriental?

 

Ah, I think I recall that. It stirred up a few letters I believe, even among the fans of the series. Can't comment on oriental part, I haven't noticed though recently the Chinese have been the "bad of the day" since the evil US government has been put in its place.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Agreed. The great pity is that some GMs would not allow these points to be expressed in-game.

 

I would. In fact, I would encourage it.

 

Mags

 

 

Here is a little something that my brother sent out to our gaming group yesterday, to reflect something that happened in our campaign while I ran the game and also to explain his PC's (Union Jack) current absence.

 

The gist of it is this: Witchcraft for unknown reasons, left the Champions and sided with Demon and Talisman to help destroy a growing threat in the mystic world. One of our UNIT 1 heroes, Dominis, ran across Witchcraft and immediately killed her in single combat while they were completely alone. This happened in the United States, when UNIT 1 was under US law & jurisdiction, per UNTIL's rules of conduct.

 

 

~~~~

 

An excerpt from CNN regarding UNIT 1

 

CNN news, first at the top of the hour.

 

"I'm Gayle Wallen.

 

The Champions mourn the loss of Witchcraft, who died several days ago in a swamp outside of Vibora Bay. Strangely UNTIL officials claim that she was assisting members of Eurostar and other wanted fugitives who had gathered at a Demon lair. Fans of the fallen heroine have brought flowers and other gifts of sympathy to Homestead, the Champions base. Our Millennium City correspondent Kirk Lohan has details."

 

"The announcement was made hours ago by a spokesman for the Champions, along with details about the events leading up to the discovery. What is known is that Witchcraft left the Champions headquarters two weeks prior to her death. The other members of the team are said to be very distraught. Sapphire has canceled her next three concerts and a team appearance at a charity gala has also been canceled.

 

The scene here, however, is one of shock and outrage. Many citizens here are claiming that Witchcraft's death was simply an act of police brutality played on a superhuman scale."

 

Mourning woman- "This Domanance fella' needs to be locked up in Stronghold. I mean, do criminals arrested by UNIT 1 have any rights?"

 

Distraught Teen- "She was probably being mind controlled. I'm sure she was innocent, and nothing she did justified lethal force."

 

Freddy- "I've got it all figured out. See this Dominis guy has the hots for that new chick in UNIT 1, Tigerwoman or something, but he knows that sooner or later UNIT 1 will go up against me….er, Foxbat and she will of course never want another man once she encounters Foxbat. So in a fit of rage he lashed out, and Witchcraft just got in the way. It's so sad Witchcraft, had a thing for Foxbat, too, and Sapphire, oh and Lady Blue… oh and that chick from the taco commercial."

 

 

"The Champions will announce plans for a public memorial service later in the week. Meanwhile gifts of sympathy continue to gather on the door step of Homestead.

 

Kirk Lohan CNN news, Back to you Gayle."

 

 

"UNIT 1 has been in the news lately for the rescue of The Silver Star, a cruise ship attacked at sea by the Ultimates. Also for routing an infestation of acid based creatures infesting Honduras. Our own Jacob Cameron had the opportunity to speak with Union Jack regarding Witchcraft's death:"

 

Union Jack "I am, of course unable to speak about a pending investigation, but I would like to reiterate a UNIT 1 officer is not just a policeman; we are trained first and foremost to save lives. We are bound by our charter to be subject to the laws of whatever nation we enter. Our charter also forbids us to conduct an investigation without express permission of the nation into which our investigation leads."

 

J.C. "So what happens now?"

 

Union Jack "As with any incident involving the death of a suspect, our officer is on administrative leave while the investigation is resolved."

 

J.C. "Who conducts the investigation?"

 

Union Jack "UNTIL does. That is why the UN Security Council keeps UNIT 1 separate from UNTIL. For the sake of checks and balances."

 

J.C. "Shouldn't the US government, Primus for example, be involved?"

 

Union Jack "They are free to conduct their own investigation, of course."

 

J.C. "Some weeks ago Scorpia was captured by your team. There are rumors that heavy handed tactics were used in her interrogation, any comments?"

 

Union Jack "Another pending investigation I'm not at liberty to comment on."

 

J.C. "To see more of my interview with Union Jack please tune in to CNN in Focus, at 10 PM eastern. Gayle, back to you."

 

"Thank you Jacob, moving on to Firewatch 2004......."

 

~~~~

 

You see, in my group, there are consequences to a PC's actions. This Player dropped out of the group several sessions back, due to family obligations, so this is more or less all background. But this illustrates that whatever significant actions the heroes take in the game- for good or bad- affects them and the game world we play in. This includes killing (and murder).

 

Mags

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The problem I have with Wanderer's opinions regarding what a true hero is (that is' date=' "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") [/quote']

 

You twist my stance: you could loosely rephrase it as "someone who is willing to do what it takes make things right for the world and promote the greater good, ignoring such irrelevancies such as law, personal danger or sacrifice". Morality and proportionality of results (always trying to do more good than harm) definitely enter the equation.

 

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.

 

PLEEEASE. Causing some unemployment by blowing up some polluting factories or overthrowing a govenrment is orders or magnitude away from running genocide of millions out of freaky political theories. Let's keep sense of proportions. For a thing, MY heroes would have snapped the necks of the political luminaries you mention as soon as they would have started their killing sprees, whereas status-quo-abiding "heroes" seem perfectly comfortable with the existence of Third-World genocidal dictators because going after them would be "against the law".

 

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.

 

To anyone its own ideal.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

A series of indistinguishable mooks in an unidentified Asian army.

 

 

Has anyone else noticed how many times the people getting murdered by these so called "heroic" serial killers are Oriental?

Guess I didn't look carefully enough, or far back enough then.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

For those who have not read the title (and I haven't read it myself in the last year or so' date=' so things may well have changed since then), The Authority are superheroes who decided that treating the symptoms was not enough: they needed to cure the disease. This mean that sometimes they use lethal force.[/quote']

 

Sometimes? You mean all the time, don't you? Their default position is the immediate appliction of lethal force. Hell, in a recent issue they used lethal force on people who's only "bad act" was being involuntarily transported to an alternate universe.

 

 

 

In essence, they are one possible answer to the question, "What would the Justice League be like if they took their moral mandate seriously but didn't consider the status quo to be sacrosanct?" In the moral spectrum I think they'd fall somewhere mid-way between the X-Men and the Punisher. No starry-eyed do-gooders these, but still, they are clearly superheroes, rather than costumed serial killers like Frank Castle.

 

You assign the Authority a moral high ground they do not deserve. They are as much "costumed serial killers" as the Punisher is. They're the Justice League if you made the Justice League a pack of depraved sociopaths who felt their abilities gave them the right to do what they wanted, regardless of who got hurt.

 

 

 

 

 

You could be correct, but I have not interpreted Wanderer's comments to mean that.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Overall they did the same things the Authority did' date=' slaughter people at their whim [b']to progress their interests[/b] without a hint of hesistation or remorse.

 

(emphasis above is mine)

 

I think you should pay closer attention to the motivations behind their respective actions. (I also disagree with your interpretation of events, but that's not what I want to address, and I do not want to get side-tracked with a geek-contest over literary interpretations.)

 

A paid assassin who shoots at an anonymous stranger just to collect a paycheck is not at the same moral level as a person who kills in defense of (or even to avenge) another. (I am deliberately not bringing soldiers, armies, or war into this: I want to focus on individuals who act alone.)

 

Superheroes and supervillains may, in some cases, be indistinguishable to people who are not aware of their motives. This goes to the core of why some superheroes are demonized and reviled (this is admittedly much more common in Marvel titles than in DC). It is extremely in-genre, even in the comics of the 1960s-1970s era (aka 4-color comics).

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It is clear that Wanderer just doesn't understand.

 

I'm done trying to argue with him. In my opinion, facism is something to be fought, not something to be promoted. He obviously disagrees. I'll pity him, but I'm done with actually responding to him.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

(Superheroes and supervillains may' date=' in some cases, be indistinguishable to people who are not aware of their motives. This goes to the core of why some superheroes are demonized and reviled (this is admittedly much more common in Marvel titles than in DC). It is extremely in-genre, even in the comics of the 1960s-1970s era (aka 4-color comics).[/quote']

 

Lets say I'm a superhero. I see a man beating his wife and I step in and stop him with physical force, easily because I am superhuman and I snap his neck. That is murder. I did not have to kill him, yet I choose too. I'm sorry, comparing the "demonization" of say Spiderman or the X men to the antics of the Authority is reaching. They've murdered people, they turn to lethal force as the first and only option and demonstrate a practical contempt for life. That is why they are not Heroes in my eyes, but contemptible serial killers with delusion of granduer.

 

and before you start with the preaching go back and read some of what I've posted before. Its not the act of killing, its your reasons and how you react to it that are important to me.

 

I think we might be closer in opinion than it seems, but we're never quite going to meet. but to play Devils' Advocate for a second,

I don't get why the Authority's tactics are exceptable, but the Punishers are not. He is killing to protect/avenge people. He is killing "bad people" in surgical strikes that harm as few innocents as possible. I would wager the drug dealers and gang members that he's takekn out have actually saved quite a few lives. Addmitly, he hasn't saved the world. It is beyond his power to do so, but I imagine if he was a more powerful being he would be much like The Authority.

 

Why is he a "costumed serial killer" and the Authority are heroes?

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was expressing my feelings about comics like The Authority and games that emuate that feel' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

In part, but not entirely true. I said that I like soul-searching in heroes the ones who use lethal force and the ones who don't, but only to the extent that they examine their actions to see that they had done more good than harm, they really killed the ones who deserved it, and they keep the use of lethal force proportionate to the circumstances. If they see that their actions have satisfied these points, I see nothing bad with them feeling at peace with themselves and not going in a orgy of angst over the act per se. Why they can't be satisfied, or confortable, with the thought of the lives they have saved snuffing out the serial killer about to skin one more child, the mad bomber about to blow out a bus, or the crazed nihilistic demon-god about to snuff out the sun, instead of wallowing in remorse ?

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

PLEEEASE. Causing some unemployment by blowing up some polluting factories or overthrowing a govenrment is orders or magnitude away from running genocide of millions out of freaky political theories. Let's keep sense of proportions. For a thing' date=' MY heroes would have snapped the necks of the political luminaries you mention as soon as they would have started their killing sprees, whereas status-quo-abiding "heroes" seem perfectly comfortable with the existence of Third-World genocidal dictators because going after them would be "against the law".[/quote']Again this is the nub of the matter. You can either assume that 4-colour is the sole objective definition of superhero, or you can recognise that the genre is (and has been) broader than that, and that a variety of moral outlooks and codes of conduct are compatible with the term superhero.

 

Referring once again to a real world political example: if I am not mistaken, the US government has recently changed its long-standing prohibition (not always observed mark you) on attempting to kill (ie. assassinate) foreign heads of state. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you support this. Why then do you find it so hard to accept the notion of a superhero who is willing to kill for the cause they fight for? (NB. when I say willing I mean that they conceive of it as a valid tactic, rather than it being an unfortunate accident used to generate angst and moral reflection.)

 

Once again, the underlying point of all this is that some of us enjoy seeing the practical exigencies and moral ambiguities of power and force in the real world being reflected in the superhero genre.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

... this illustrates that whatever significant actions the heroes take in the game- for good or bad- affects them and the game world we play in.

 

That was very cool. Thank you for sharing that.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

and before you start with the preaching go back and read some of what I've posted before. Its not the act of killing' date=' its your reasons and how you react to it that are important to me.[/quote']

 

Have I been preachy? Ick. It was not intentional. Please forgive me.

 

Why is [The Punisher] a "costumed serial killer" and the Authority are heroes?

 

Because his motive is not to protect the innocent, or defend the weak, but to punish the wicked. I think that this is an important distinction. People who consider the Punisher to be heroic, or the Authority to be villainous, would probably disagree.