Code VS Killing Poll

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Is there such a thing as a Code vs. Political posts in the Gaming threads?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Is there such a thing as a Code vs. Political posts in the Gaming threads?

 

Well, this topic in particular does touch on a couple of related political issues, so some brief mention is understandable. Like a lot of things, it needs a light touch to keep it from being annoying. I think that for the most part, this thread has kept a very high signal to noise ratio.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Is there such a thing as a Code vs. Political posts in the Gaming threads?

Yes.

 

Note the people who haven't posted. But we can only guess at those who haven't read past the first page...

 

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I've noticed that there's none of them thar star thingamadohickys next to the name of this thread...

 

There some people not liken to rate stuff like this?

 

Or have we really just gotten that bad?

 

 

EDIT: Wait, I see stars now..

 

maybe I just hit my head

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Let it show for the record that' date=' given his previous statements regarding the US government, Wanderer has thus deemed the current US president a "genocidal dictator" worthy of slaughter by a pack of psychotic metahumans acting as self-appointed public avengers.[/quote']

 

Sigh, Worldmaker. You really not seeing cause you do not wish to see. I really apologize for cluttering the thread with political rants, but I'm forced to defend from one who deliberately libels me as a psychopath nazi.

 

To record, about RL current US government: so far, we have a president who usurped political power by stealing the election through blatant corruption of the election machinery, who plunged US in an unnecessary war, causing great harm to the US and Iraqi people, by blatantly lying to his people and the world, with the aim to appropriate Iraqi oil reserves with the ultimate scope of safeguarding the privileges and pockets of his cronies in the oil industry and industrial-militar complex. That he did this, to the public awareness, and yet has not yet impeached and removed from office (when his predecessor was forced to undergo undeserved persecution over lying over a blowjob) is something whose political causes I may understand, but utterly disgusts me, and says a lot about the flaws of democracy. (if you say that removing Saddam should be in vibe with my political ideas, I say it does, but North Korea's dictator was a much greater threat to world peace and was much more harmful to its own people, so NK should had gone first; but of course, NK had no oil to grab).

 

Now, in such a situation, what would my brand of radically actvist superhumans do ? The man is certainly a traitor to his own people, and a threat to world peace (though not worth the capital punishment), but it is likely a much more harmless and natural way of removing him of power might come from upcoming elections, so they would wait and see (if they had positive populatiry by engaging in war on terrorism, bringing back the head of Al-Qaeda leaders, humanitarian relief, and preventing natural disasters outweighting the negative one from their revolutionary activities, they would heavily campaign against him). Only if he would get re-elected, and he kept being a severe threat to world peace, they might move against him... maybe. Or maybe not, being aware of the real risk of doing more harm than good.

 

In the scenario I described, radically distancing from RL political situations, US government was supposed to do a different thing: resort to widespread use of armed force against the supers in an open war situation, including threatening the supers' loved ones, and using WMD in populated areas to stop them, up to running the risk of massive nuclear destruction. I said that in that case, overthrowing the government, and executing its leaders, would be justified, on two different counts: in a war situation, the political commanders are perfectly justified targets, and eliminating them has the potential to cause much less harm than going through the armed forces on the field. And using WMD in such a fashion would make the government genocidal, and hence fit for immediate elimination.

 

In current RL geopolitical situation, governments that are genocidal, mass murdering, and greviously dictatorial, and hence fit for immediate overthrowing through armed force by revolutionary activist supers, would be, say: North Korea, Burma, Sudan; maybe Iran and China, but in that case considerations about doing more harm than good by disrupting government would ensue, since the human rights situation is not so desperate. Talibans would have been fit for immediate removal, and Saddam would have been probably ranked in the "maybe" area.

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Allot of own prejudice against Wanderer comes more from his thread "Superhumans Pulling an Authority" than this one. I think you can find it if you do a search but I do not have a link. He makes his views pretty clear. And yeah, I'd have to say unless I completely misunderstood him he was talking about "normal" polluting industries and whaling ships not Werewolf:the Apocolypse style evil spawning hellholes. Of course, depending your stance on whales those could be consider machines of mass murder. That may be where Worldmaker is coming from as well. I beleive he participated in that thread.

 

 

Please no one take this as an indication that I beleive pollution is a good thing or that enviornmental concerns are not important.

 

Nexus, if you remember well, I also repeteadly made clear that the original scenario would include destroying whaler ships, and polluting factories, taking care innocents are not bodily harmed, in order to push them out of business, and lethal force was advocated only against the likes of genocidal dictators and corporate executives guilty of really, really severe environmental damage (which might be construed to be mass murder in worst cases).

 

Discussion of the scenario subsequently brought to hypothesize that things would escalate to widespread armed conflict between revolutionary supers and governments in an open war situation, and in that case open use of lethal force by supers, and ultimately political takeover by supers, setting themselves up as global overseer body, with veto powers over governments and laws, was hypothesized (making clear that widespread attacks on civilians would not be acceptable) and some rabid super-patriot ranted that in that case governements should immolate mankind in nuclear fire rather than surrender to superhuman overseers (without bothering to ask mankind whether it prefers to die, or live under superhuman rule), and I argued that in such a case, government officials would be a bunch of genocidal murderers only fit with elimination with extreme prejudice.

 

How Worldmaker manages to mistake all of this with Nazism and the Holocaust, is beyond me, unless one is politically biased against the very idea of stepping outside the rule of law, and using armed force to advance a political agenda, that in his mind this is indistinguidhable from active pursuit of genocide. Well, to anyone his own ideas, though holding such views is a bad slight to genocide victims and all armed revolutionaries down history, many of whom weren't the genocidal bunch of psycho sociopaths he depicts.

 

For the record, and I'm speaking from professional knowledge here: being willing to go in armed rebellion against a government to advance a political agenda, and being a sociopath or psychotic, are very, very, very, different things. You may be technically a criminal, but not necessarily a mental ill person. It was the Soviets, that badly abused psychiatry by putting labels of mental disease on political dissidents.

[lemming]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Hmm, I skipped over the middle to the end to find a completly different thread.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Nexus, if you remember well, I also repeteadly made clear that the original scenario would include destroying whaler ships, and polluting factories, taking care innocents are not bodily harmed, in order to push them out of business, and lethal force was advocated only against the likes of genocidal dictators and corporate executives guilty of really, really severe environmental damage (which might be construed to be mass murder in worst cases).

 

Discussion of the scenario subsequently brought to hypothesize that things would escalate to widespread armed conflict between revolutionary supers and governments in an open war situation, and in that case open use of lethal force by supers, and ultimately political takeover by supers, setting themselves up as global overseer body, with veto powers over governments and laws, was hypothesized (making clear that widespread attacks on civilians would not be acceptable) and some rabid super-patriot ranted that in that case governements should immolate mankind in nuclear fire rather than surrender to superhuman overseers (without bothering to ask mankind whether it prefers to die, or live under superhuman rule), and I argued that in such a case, government officials would be a bunch of genocidal murderers only fit with elimination with extreme prejudice.

 

How Worldmaker manages to mistake all of this with Nazism and the Holocaust, is beyond me, unless one is politically biased against the very idea of stepping outside the rule of law, and using armed force to advance a political agenda, that in his mind this is indistinguidhable from active pursuit of genocide. Well, to anyone his own ideas, though holding such views is a bad slight to genocide victims and all armed revolutionaries down history, many of whom weren't the genocidal bunch of psycho sociopaths he depicts.

 

For the record, and I'm speaking from professional knowledge here: being willing to go in armed rebellion against a government to advance a political agenda, and being a sociopath or psychotic, are very, very, very, different things. You may be technically a criminal, but not necessarily a mental ill person. It was the Soviets, that badly abused psychiatry by putting labels of mental disease on political dissidents.

 

I don't know why I am bothering, but as you would say "Oh Please." Causing severe enviornmental damage is a crime worthyof death without trial? That's overreacting just a little bit, don't you think? And as one pointed out. You would be harming "innocents" one way or the other. Either directly (some poor schmucks get caught in the destruction directly) or from the considerble economic damage your "radicals" could inflict by simply gutting industries without putting anything in place to replace them. Not to mention the degree of damage to enviorment said destruction is going to do in its own right, like those morons setting plants and car factories on fire. What else will these Heroes decide is important enough to kill people at their whim over? After all they've done it before. And don't give one of you "slippery slope is silly" arguments. Its a fact of life. It can be taken to absurd length, but that doesn't eliminate its validity. Killing gets easier the more you do it. Breaking the law and hurting people gets easier. Terrorists esclate. And yes, you're radicals are terrorists in action if not thought. They are using fear to initate political and social change without sanction or even any major degree of social support. That might be justificable in cynical riddled with corruption to an absurd level like the The Authority universe but I thought we were talking about the real world. I fail to see how your group is any different from any number of terrorists group beyond having a great deal more power. Some of them "warn" people before the set off bombs and only target what they consider "legititmate" enemies. They call themselves "revolutionaries" and "activists" too. The destruction all looks the same afterward, oddly enough. The difference is these revolutionaries aren't being oppressed outside of their own minds. They exist in a system where they can make change without blowing stuff up. Just not as fast as they would like so like angry children they throw a tantrum and call it a revolution.

 

The reason Worldmaker is comparing your a nazi (which is use of a unfair weighted term, IMO.in the US it seems like "Nazi" has come to mean someone with an unduly elevated faith in the value of their own beleifs and on how intensely they should enforced) is that your "activists" are basically doing the same thing you claim to hate in the Bush administration. Causing undo harm on innocent people, seizing power illegally and without permission and acting without regard to needs/desires of those they claim to be helping. They are setting themselves up as tyrants because the rest of humanity is supposedly unfit to rule itself. Except on a much grander scale and for much longer. This makes them Heros (Because you agree with them) and the Bush adminsistration worthy of being hunted down and murdered? Mainly because they don't agree with your set of ideals. The humanity self immolating came up after you basically stated that every other means of protest or resistance would be futile, those that disagreed with this new regime would be ignored or eliminated depending on for daring to think that merely having great power didn't give a small group of self appointed "saviors" the right to shove their agenda down everyone's throat. Your radical supers have already proven (to me at least) by their actions they may be superhuman in physical might but in intelligence, compassion and self control they are quite human, even less so than most from what I understand and they have no right to rule beyond Might makes right. I like think that humanity would eventually progress beyond that. I certainly wouldn't want people willing to commit these kinds of acts as dictators of the world. No matter if I agreed with their dogma or not. I am no so arrogant as to think that my political agenda is the solely correct one or to try and drive it home by force. I prefer debate, intelligent discussion and compromise to work toward sustainable change over the chaos and a world ruled by fear this would create. I, for one, would not like to live in a gilded cage run by so called "benevolent" tyrants that apparently considered me something of a pet because a radioactive gorrilla bit them once and gave them powers. Or something. Would humanity immolate itself? No, problably not unless some group pulled it off. People have delt with worse and naturally people want to surivive but it would be some ideal dream like you paint it.

 

Unlike Worldmaker (who is a very passionate fellow from what I can tell, interesingly enough like Wanderer) I've decided you're not insane. As was brought up earlier, this is your "If I had a rocket launcher" fantasy. I think you talk a good game about easy killing and doing so without remorse and overthrowing "The Man" online and with your friends. But if you really truly felt this way with conviction, you wouldn't be online talking about it. You'd be out somewhere planting bombs in a chemical factory or making plans to assasinate ol' GWB. To be fair, if we on the "other side" (I use quotes but its not monolethic) were so gung ho, we'd be out beating up crooks and such. But we're all just gamers playing a game of Let's Pretend. The funny part is you come on here, post long diatribes about how your heroes are clearly superior to the four color "moral cowards" many people here beleive in and how they should be wiped out and replaced by real heroes like The Authority (oft ignoring little problems like what happens when one group of high powered radicals clashes with another) then when people get miffed and defend their ideals you respond with more of how you're preferred power fantasy is superior to "our" preferred power fantasy. And whining about you were being attacked and labelled while attacking and labelling others. So, no, you're not a nazi. You are somewhat fascist and arrogant in the sense you really seem to think power gives you the right (or responsibility as you would call it) to force you views on others without giving them a choice (a bit like those religious zealots you claim to hate so much), but no, you're a not a nazi. I'll be frank, you really do come across like an angry and somewhat spoiled teenager that thinks he knows how to rule the world only if he could make everyone else bow down but they're too stupid to listen. You claim to be older than that and highly educated and I have no evidence otherwise, but that is not how you come across. Since I'm going for completely disclosure I do find it highly disturbing that the reason you despise Superman and character like him is not because they don't kill (which he has, more than once when the situation demanded it and outside of the moral certainity that the Authority operates under) but because they are "morally weak" enough to feel remorse and question their actions. That IS somewhat like the Nazi ideal of a hardened, compassionless ubermensch.

 

I'll will admit you do seem to have a certain passion about your convictions and you argue better than I do (but you tend to rely a little more on veiled ridicule and stretching arguments to extremes, IMO). And yeah, I have taken some cheap shots at you a couple times.

 

There, political rant and borderline personal attack done. If this gets me banned or whatever so be it, but I felt it needed to be said. Now back to the topic of this thread. Does the Authority suxxors or roxxors?

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In point of fact, I didn't call him a Nazi. I said that the justification he was using to support of the terroristic mayhem his "ideal" superteam would cause is the same one used by tyrannies everywhere to justify crimes against humanity. Go reread my post if you don't believe me. I can wait...

 

Back? Good.

 

Let me reiterate my point: "its for the common good" has been used to falsely justify more atrocities than any other reason except "God wills it". Wanderer is merely the latest in a long line of people to put that phrase to such a use.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In point of fact, I didn't call him a Nazi. I said that the justification he was using to support of the terroristic mayhem his "ideal" superteam would cause is the same one used by tyrannies everywhere to justify crimes against humanity. Go reread my post if you don't believe me. I can wait...

 

Back? Good.

 

Let me reiterate my point: "its for the common good" has been used to falsely justify more atrocities than any other reason except "God wills it". Wanderer is merely the latest in a long line of people to put that phrase to such a use.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were calling him a nazi.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Whew, I'm worn out, guys, i kinda tuned out the last couple pages.

 

Anything new happen?

 

Anyway, I'm not sure we're not all talking past eachother now or simply saying the same things in such a way as to violently agree.

 

I missed about 18 hours and I'm only skimming the most recent pages as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Just for interest...

 

I should add that I am currently reading the Dark Phoenix Saga. I am still reading it and since I don't recall the outcome I'll say just this: Wolverine ripped up a number of agents (I assumed they were all killed) in the Hellfire Club; while Dark Phoenix killed an entire planet, over 5 billion beings, when she consumed their sun and it went supernova on them, destroying all the planets in the system.

 

Wolverine never has to own up to his killing sprees. I don't recall this ever being an issue with him either. Regarding his fighting style, the other X-Men just look away. Does that make them accomplices, I wonder?

 

In a subsequent arc, the agents attacked by Wolverine apear again. Turns out they weren't killed, but badly wounded, and had been outfitted cybernetically by Donald Pierce, making them far more powerful. And they were very happy to get another shot at Wolverine.

 

There was also an interesting scene shortly after the Dark Phoenix saga where Storm called Wolverine down on use of his claws, the basic gist being "X-Men don't kill" and that a guy with his enhanced senses, adamantuium skeleton, healing factor and combat skills should need his claws only againts the most powerful of opposition. Her case (in the middle of combat) came down to "Sheathe your claws or use them on me". Angel also quit the team due to Wolverine's bloodthirst.

 

Dark Phoenix, or rather, Jean Grey never has to pay for her crimes either. Interesting how the X-Men stand behind her all the way, claiming that she didn't do the deed... it was 'The Dark Phoenix' which is, essentially her with all her powers unleashed.

 

Was Jean Grey out of her mind? Insane? Would it hold up in defense now that she has regained her former state of mind? Should she still be punished?

 

The back story on this is unusual. Apparently, the original plotline called for the X-Men to lose in #137, and Jean to be stripped oif her psychic powers. The editor, however, felt that this was not sufficient for her crimes, particularly the destruction of a populated world, which resulted in the death scene rather than her being de-powered. The "Return of Jean Grey" storyline only came about because a writer proposed the idea that what we say from X-Men 101 to 137 wasn't actually Jean - she'd been cocooned at the bottom of the bay while a spearate entity, the Phoenix Force, assumed her life.

 

As for Wolverine as a hero, 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.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Of course this misses the "classic bit" of the reluctant hero. The story of how Odysseus feigned madness in an attempt to avoid having to fight at Troy is one of the classic bits of this.

 

It's also a good starting point for a campaign against Authority-type world conquerors.

 

By "do something" I don't mean they have to fight or get into politics or whatever... they just need to be proactive as players. It's more of a comment on the player, than the motivation for the character. I've been in too many situations where players are immature or have been conditioned to simply "react" to something presented by the GM. If you give them open time to just go out and interact with the world, each other, whatever... they sit there, staring blankly at you. (Think silent moment on Space Ghost Coast To Coast with Zorak's eyes going "plunk plunk" as the only sound in the room.)

 

I'm looking for players with characters who get off their butts and take action... seek out news or information to drive their own plots/stories... start conversations, go on patrol, meet with contacts, etc... (it's an issue of expecting a level of director stance from my players).

 

A reluctant hero is great... as long as they have something else they'd rather be doing. I had a speedster in my own world who was a carpenter and really tried to spend most of his time working for Habitat For Humanity and doing charity gigs... and was very reluctant to ever fight at all, though he worked with the local police and fire department on rescue missions. Dealing with villains and criminals was WAY down on his list.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

By "do something" I don't mean they have to fight or get into politics or whatever... they just need to be proactive as players. It's more of a comment on the player, than the motivation for the character. I've been in too many situations where players are immature or have been conditioned to simply "react" to something presented by the GM. If you give them open time to just go out and interact with the world, each other, whatever... they sit there, staring blankly at you. (Think silent moment on Space Ghost Coast To Coast with Zorak's eyes going "plunk plunk" as the only sound in the room.)

.

 

I can relate here. I have a group of Hunter players that won't -do- anything. They'll sit around and discuss options forever. But then they'll just sit there waiting for me to make something happen. Its quite frustrating.

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Hmm' date=' I skipped over the middle to the end to find a completly different thread.[/quote']

Yeah, kinda amusing, innit?.. rather like watching other people's kids squabbling in a restaurant, and seeing all the other patrons trying valiantly to ignore them.

 

:think:Well... maybe not THAT much fun...

 

John T

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Lets see if there is a consenus here.

 

Superheroes (Traditional) do not murder eagerly, nor easily.

 

Can we agree on that much?

We most certainly can. The point of contention has always been that you have to be a traditional superhero to qualify as a hero at all in the world of supers.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Hugh wrote:

 

In a subsequent arc, the agents attacked by Wolverine apear again. Turns out they weren't killed, but badly wounded, and had been outfitted cybernetically by Donald Pierce, making them far more powerful. And they were very happy to get another shot at Wolverine.

 

Which was when I first started to lose interest in Marvel comics. It was such an undermining of one of the greatest X-Men comics ever to have these guys come back. "See... Wolvie... cutsie, nice little wolvie... didn't really kill them... here they are back! See!"

 

Wolverine took a stance... you pushed me, now I'm doing what others refuse to do... I'm going to take you out... permanently. That was great, dramatic storytelling, and Claremont f***ed it over by retconning them back to life.

 

It only got worse when they brought Jean Gray back to life, totally underminding the Dark Phoenix saga and her passionate sacrifice. I stopped buying Marvel comics for years, after that. To this day, I buyonly a few here and there.

 

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.

 

Thanks, Hugh... for reminding me of one of my worst comic geek moments ever...

 

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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.

 

Well, unless you get that Adder on your Regeneration.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

wow

 

less than a week of unemployment (and board browsing between customer calls) and this thread has exploded!

 

I have skimmed through most of the pages in this thread and just wanted to put in my 4 yen.

 

I think that any radical stance on killing or code vs. on the part of a 'super-hero' is just a reflection on his belief in the ability of the 'normals' to govern themselves. The 1st Superman movie explored this a little with Jor-El's warnings in the clouds after Lois died (and there were more deleted scenes on the collecter DVD). The comic "Kingdom Come" also explored aspects of this dillema that all suposed "super-heroes" must face. How many government laws are they willing to break in their quest to use their powers for the greater good of humanity? At what point does their philosophy of crime prevention cross the line become in favor of a police state? Not ALL superheroes have thoughts this deep, usually because they don't have powers or resources that force them to consider these types of issues (Spider-man) but both Superman and Batman have the means to affect global politics if they so chose (of course this would violate one comic tradition of having the comic world mirror the real one in as many areas as possible) but they do not. If they did they would just become a typical 'end justifies the means' James Bond villain. Is Bruce Wayne's personality really that much different than that of Victor Von Doom? or Magnetto? Lex Luthor? In just about every case the differences are a result of how much they do not trust others to rule justly. Batman has the most control of his inner megalomaniac out of that bunch. If that were to change he could easily be more dangerous than Lex Luthor.

 

In the case of Superman, he does not wish to rule or be worshiped as a god. It was established early on that his upbringing by the Kents had a lot to do with this attitude on his part and I am sure that more than one Elseworlds story has explored the variations on his upbringing and his resulting moral compass by which he uses his powers.

 

sorry if any of this has already been covered as it IS a rather long thread at this point!

I think you raise a good point - we're spending a lot of time on a smaller issue that is part of a larger one.

 

Which is interesting as well in that many have proposed a "slippery slope" regarding supers who kill...well, why aren't we talking about the same slippery slope regarding vigilanteism at all? The slippery slope does not exist in "pure" 4-color comics I'd posit, but the reality is that over time the essential comic book contention that superhero vigilantes are good is a slippery slope to the killing machine "heroes" we now see.

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well' date=' unless you get that Adder on your Regeneration. [/quote']

Even that's no guarantee. Meet the condition(s) under which it "fails", and you're still toast.

 

John T

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well, the story I mentioned was published in the late-80s/early-90s. That would be late Bronze Age. The Bronze Age was always my favorite period of comics. Not "kill them all", nor "you shall never kill", but a recognition that there are special circunstances.

 

Captain America killed in a Mark Gruenwald story, where some terrorists opened fire against a crowd, and Cap had lost his shield, so Cap was forced to grab a gun from the ground and stop the terrotists before the casualties got even higher. I thought it was a "heroic" action.

 

Superman killed too, in the conclusion of the pocket universe storyline mentioned in another thread, when Superman was the last force for good in a alternate Earth wiped out by three Kryptonian criminals who then threatened to do the same to Superman's Earth. There were no authorities left to turn the criminals to, and they were mass murderers in an unbelievable scale. Supes killed them, I gave Supes a pass for the "special circunstances" clause (later the poor guy had a breakdown for doing it).

 

Marvel Boy/Justice killed his abusive bigoted violent father in a moment of fury and fear. I don't think it was "heroic", but I think it was understandable and, up to a point, self-defense.

 

Hm... on a tangent, I also always found a bit strange that superheroes are supposed to be "excused" when destroying vampires, robots, and computers, for instance. At least to my mind, the defining factor should be sentience. If the creature is sentient and sufficiently self-aware, then I shouldn't treat their existence in a lighter way than I treat human life and should only destroy then if the situations are extreme enough. Well, robots and computers can be rebuilt, at least.

 

Perhaps this hint at the real root of some "CVKs": religious feelings. You can kill a vampire because a vampire has no "soul". Is that it?

Good point re religion, but I think it really is more secular; we could substitute "enlightened sentience" for soul and be talking about the same thing. The whole CvK thing usually gets thrown out when we encounter something so provably malignant that even in a sci-fi multi-race setting it is clearly just "bad". For example, in Star Trek there was the black "thing" that killed Tasha Yar and essentially was just "evil". We could say it had no soul, but we can as easily say it lacked a sentience that had any ability to do anything other than destroy.

 

I am more interested, though, in figuring out if people can agree what is 4-color. If we can agree on that, I think it gets easier to determine the relevance of superheroism to killing. In 4-color, the world is simpler. As we leave 4-color, the world isn't. I think discussing CvK and saying "superheroes aren't killers" in a gritty post-Modern post-Iron Age setting, for example, is an exercise in both futility and denying the reality of an entirely separate ethos from the one so many "mature" Champions players wish to ascribe to.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually, I'm quite familiar with it. Perhaps you don't know the difference between a Nazi, and the people in change of them. Nazi's weren't evil (well, as a people, there were some sadists in there), just the leaders, who convince them the Jews were the enemy and needed to be wiped out/taught a lesson. The Nazi party (at least the leaders) didn't believe a word of the subhuman crap. They just wanted everybody shooting and someone else but them.

 

 

I mention this once and I'm insisting? This respose seems to prove that you do blow what other people say out of perportion. I said "every other post", and you apparently read "every post". Maybe the boards deleted that simple, but significent five letter word, "other". Nope, I checked, it's there.

 

Sorry about that. But I take it as a personal insult to myself and my beliefs when I've been misquoted or mis repesented. Since you've (though only slightly) done this to me, I can only assume you've done this to Wanderer.

 

In any case, the least you could do is be less of an ass. I enjoy conversing with you, but only about half of what you type I'd call conversing, and none of what you type concerning Wanderer.

I think what you're saying is that no political ideology is inherently evil, which is certainly a discussion for NGD...

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I can relate here. I have a group of Hunter players that won't -do- anything. They'll sit around and discuss options forever. But then they'll just sit there waiting for me to make something happen. Its quite frustrating.

Good Lord, I couldn't keep my players from visiting Bush in the White House and it was only somewhat relevant!

 

Can we trade for a week? (Just kidding, I wouldn't trade my gaming group for the world, they're really a ton of fun, in a barrel of monkeys kind of way, which suits my GMing style just fine.)

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Even that's no guarantee. Meet the condition(s) under which it "fails", and you're still toast.

 

John T

 

Yes, it was a joke.

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I am more interested' date=' though, in figuring out if people can agree what is 4-color. If we can agree on that, I think it gets easier to determine the relevance of superheroism to killing. In 4-color, the world is simpler. As we leave 4-color, the world isn't. I think discussing CvK and saying "superheroes aren't killers" in a gritty post-Modern post-Iron Age setting, for example, is an exercise in both futility and denying the reality of an entirely separate ethos from the one so many "mature" Champions players wish to ascribe to.[/quote']

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

 

John T