Code VS Killing Poll

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

A "superhero" is a human concept.

 

I'll address this later on.

 

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

 

I'll agree with this to a point. I maintain that the distinction between "human" and "superhuman" as separate species is unrealistic. I would consider Superman "human" for all intents and purposes. The fact that he is Kryptonian is of no consequence. "Human" doesn't mean "homo sapien". "Human" is a collection of aspects of nature and characteristics that separate us from lower animals. But that's beside the point, I think...

 

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

 

 

And again I disagree (but in a fun way...I'm enjoying this little exploration).

 

It does not matter what anyone else thinks. It matters what the superhero thinks.

 

In a recent issue of Captain America (I think...maybe it was "Avengers". I can't remember now), a guy jumps into a burning building and holds up the collapsing roof so Cap (or whoever it was) can save the kids. The guy is definitely super strong, but he's not invulnerable, and when the building collapses he dies.

 

The guy is a superhero. He possesses superhuman abilities and did the right thing for the right reasons. No one will know his name except for Cap (or whoever it was) and the guy's wife, but he's a superhero. The perceptions of the public are inconsequential in determining whether you do the right thing or not. You should do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, not because everyone's watching. It's the old "ring of invisibility" argument posed by Socrates so long ago (or was it Plato?). If you could get away with it (crime), would you? Superheroes say "No, because it's wrong".

 

Judging a person's actions does not give merit to those actions. The intent and motive behind the actions are what provides merit, even if no one ever knows about it.

 

Remember, we're talking about comics and games here, so we automatically get insight into the characters' heads. To place real-world limitations on the argument would be to nullify the argument all-together. You have to stay within the context of the genre or our whole discussion falls apart, mainly because we don't have superheroes to argue morality with.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

RDU Neil, obviously a metahuman whose only power was to leap 20 metres vertically would be subject to exactly the same moral obligations as ourselves. I'd say the same goes for the vast majority of comic book superheroes. When you talk about metahumans who are not subject to these rules I think you need another term - godlike being or some such.

 

The issues you discuss were examined to some degree in Watchmen through the character Doctor Manhattan.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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

 

Hmmm. I'm not making myself clear, I guess. Let me try another approach.

 

I play this particular rpg (Hero System) because I was introduced to the game Champions. A Superhero game. What attracted me to the game was not playing a powerful being who could do anything they wanted bacause the mundanes couldn't stop me... it was because I wanted to play a Superhero. Period.

 

The perception of whether a character is being played as a Superhero is on many levels: We see it in an omnipresent way, the NPCs see it in varying degrees, and the PCs themselves see it their own way. What is most important is how we, the omnipresent viewers of the rpg saga, see it. The GM, the Players, the viewers, the onlookers. Discount this and the rest is all circumstance.

 

 

You go right on ahead and play your meta-human game, and I hope you have a fine time with it. Me? I'll play a Superhero.

 

 

Cheers,

 

Mags

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

I think I disagree with this. Needs to not a human make, nor powers a human unmake. Human in a condition that superceeds needs, and therefore normals and supers would all be considered human. I'm obviously not referring to the human species, that's easily definable, but to the human mindset. In these areas, there is no difference between humans and metahumans except in capability. In fact, there's not much difference, if any, between humans and aliens as presented in comics. Everyone is human, at least in mind and soul.

 

The only difference between normal humans and metahumans is a difference in magnatude of capability. There is a large group of people in this world, the real world, that are stronger than I am, and infact almost eveyone. Are they not to be bound by the rest of humanity? I'm smarter than almost everyone. I'm not bragging, I'm certain almost everyone on these boards is just as smart if not smarter than I am. Sould we be held to the same standards as everyone else?

 

I believe we do. It's the thought that we shouldn't that makes some people magalomaniacal madmen who try to subvert the rest of mankind because they think it's their natural right. My neighbors are idiots. Really they are. But I have no right to march into their home, claim command of the family and dictate to them how they should live their lives. Sure I'm smarter and could probably guide them quite well, but I don't have the right to do so. It would be wrong, even if it could help us both. Now if they came over and asked me, that would be different. But, what can I say...they're idiots!

 

Basically, humans and metahumans are held by the same moral and ethical values. They might differ amongst them all slightly, but the same values apply to all. Comparing us to chimps, lions and such is ridiculous, as they aren't even near a human's level of thinking. It's not even a matter of intelligence, but of instincts. Not even close. But human and metahuman thinking and instincts are identical. Needs have nothing to do with it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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

 

I'll assume I'm reading your snideness in, and you didn't really intend that, because if you did, you just called yourself shallow.

 

If you don't want deep, why discuss CvK at all? It is these ethical/moral discussions and the questions they raise about the nature of humanity and existence that are what we are discussing here. What is the point of anything, if you are not challenging your (our, everone's) perceptions and assumptions and digging deeper to find truth?

 

And by the way, I play Hero System... and I make it my own game, because it is a wonderfully flexible system for doing just that. It is taking the "superhero" genre and challenging it to be more than commonly assumed.

 

To this end, I wish there was a place to discuss "metahuman role playing" but it doesn't exist... so I challenge the definition of superhero to expand to include a broader spectrum (especially since the genre as shown in the source material is quite inconsistent in the first place.) I feel this is correct, because any time you limit yourself to a narrowly constructed definition, you exclude alternate POV and limit your own possibilities (not to mention becoming dogmatic.)

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'm smarter than almost everyone.

Yeah, but you are, so far as I am aware, still within human limits of thinking power and perception. Imagine if you had the mental, perceptual and physical capabilities of one of the spaceship-based AIs from Iain M. Banks Culture novels.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Aah...my mistake.

 

But I still disagree

 

The word "superhero" is, of course, one humans invented. But the definition is not dependent upon the judgment of a normal, but rather whether the actions and motives of the person in question fit within the concept of what it means to be a "superhero". It's my contention that no audience of any sort is necessary for one to be a superhero. Even if said audience is present there's no need for them to view the individual in a positive light. It is enough that the individual posseses powers and abilities above the norm (to qualify for the "super" part), and that he or she has behaved in a courageous and noble manner (which includes motive/intent--and that's the "hero" part of the word).

 

To (lamely) attempt to put this on some sort of track relating to the original question, it's neither "courageous" nor "noble" to kill indiscriminately, or in a manner contradictory to that particular society's moral and ethical standards.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

If a superhuman is not human... then they can choose to follows ethics or not...

Humans can make that choice too you know. There's nothing special about being superhuman that makes them deviate from humanity that much.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I Needs to not a human make' date=' nor powers a human unmake. Human in a condition that superceeds needs, and therefore normals and supers would all be considered human. I'm obviously not referring to the human species, that's easily definable, but to the human mindset. [/quote']

 

This is the crux. The human mindset is defined by human existence. Needs are defined as those things essential to existence. Our mindset is defined by needs. Now...we can abstract our thoughts, and express our needs and actions in an infinite variety of ways... many of them often self-defeating and self-destructive on purpose or accident... but they are all driven by the realities of human existence.

 

I don't see how it logically can exist any other way... as even the belief in "inherent value" or "ultimate moral good" as universal concepts are just human ideas created to try to work our way through our needs.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yeah' date=' but you are, so far as I am aware, still within human limits of thinking power and perception. Imagine if you had the mental, perceptual and physical capabilities of one of the spaceship-based AIs from Iain M. Banks Culture novels.[/quote']

 

Exactly, Doug... and to your point before... yes... this is about scale. Spider-Man is still close enough to human to have very simliar needs, thus effectively still be human. Superman, OTOH...

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'll assume I'm reading your snideness in, and you didn't really intend that, because if you did, you just called yourself shallow.

 

I wasn't intending to be snide and I'm sorry it came across like that. I just don't think Champions (Not Hero. Hero is a system, it has not genre) is a game of comic book superheroes (Four Color, Gritty, what have you). Matter of Transhumanity, Deep philispohical debate and such seem somewhat broader in scope. They are not what I play "Champions" for. Now, in Aberrant they're the key factors, but Aberrant isn't (as White wolf proclaimed very loudly) as Superhero or a comic book game. The ideas your discussing match almost exactly the idea of Teras in the Aberrant setting (if you haven't looked into that game, I would suggest I think you'd find it very fascinating as it touches on just these issues). I play Champions just to play a superhero. I started this thread to find how people played Code vs Killing in their Superhero role playing games.

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Dust Raven,

 

Perhaps he meant that super beings don't have to suffer the consequences of the society, whereas normal humans do have to suffer those consequences. Depending on the power wielded of course.

 

A Possible Clarification

 

- Christopher Muillins

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

...I feel this is correct' date=' because any time you limit yourself to a narrowly constructed definition, you exclude alternate POV and limit your own possibilities (not to mention becoming dogmatic.)[/quote']

Just Curious about this concept.

 

Are you presenting this as fact, or just your opinion?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I started this thread to find how people played Code vs Killing in their Superhero role playing games.

 

Sorry that we got a bit off topic, nexus (cuz that never happens on the boards ). I did answer the question as asked, though, way back near the beginning.

 

It's possible we've reached a philosophical impasse anyway, so we can let it go if you'd prefer.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Sorry that we got a bit off topic, nexus (cuz that never happens on the boards ). I did answer the question as asked, though, way back near the beginning.

 

It's possible we've reached a philosophical impasse anyway, so we can let it go if you'd prefer.

 

Your all having an interesting conversation. Its not my place to tell you to shut up. I was putting in my two cents.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Aah...my mistake.

 

But I still disagree

 

The word "superhero" is, of course, one humans invented. But the definition is not dependent upon the judgment of a normal, but rather whether the actions and motives of the person in question fit within the concept of what it means to be a "superhero". It's my contention that no audience of any sort is necessary for one to be a superhero. Even if said audience is present there's no need for them to view the individual in a positive light. It is enough that the individual posseses powers and abilities above the norm (to qualify for the "super" part), and that he or she has behaved in a courageous and noble manner (which includes motive/intent--and that's the "hero" part of the word).

 

To (lamely) attempt to put this on some sort of track relating to the original question, it's neither "courageous" nor "noble" to kill indiscriminately, or in a manner contradictory to that particular society's moral and ethical standards.

 

And I'm waiting for Wanderer to show up and state that "courageous and noble" would be destroying polluting factories and sinking whaling ships and executing Shrub is exactly that.

 

And becareful of using society as a judge... there are plenty of societies that have demonstrated wholesale slaughter as a moral standard.

 

See, every definition is based off of another definition, which in the end are nothing more than poorly expressed (by all humans, not you in particular) abstract concepts we try to use to communicate our needs. They fall apart even further when you begin to posit metahumans (those of sufficiently expanded powers to put them beyond basic human needs) into the mix. At that point, we can only debate and surmise what would be ethical for them, as it is beyond our ability to know.

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

RDU Neil,

 

Perhaps you should start a thread concerning the issues you wish to discuss. To try to intentionally sidetrack this thread from it's creator's original purpose would be wrong in my opinion. And I'm not accusing anyone of that either.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Perhaps you should start a thread concerning the issues you wish to discuss. To try to intentionally sidetrack this thread from it's creator's original purpose would be wrong in my opinion. And I'm not accusing anyone of that either.

nexus said it was OK. Anyway you always get thread drift. So long as it's interesting, and this certainly is, then it's alright.

 

And actually the issue of whether sufficiently powerful metahumans would be beyond human morality is perfectly appropriate when discussing whether superheroes can kill.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Dust Raven,

 

Perhaps he meant that super beings don't have to suffer the consequences of the society, whereas normal humans do have to suffer those consequences. Depending on the power wielded of course.

 

A Possible Clarification

 

- Christopher Muillins

 

Close enough. Consequences only matter if they affect our needs... those things crucial to our existence. A super (losing the hero bit for now) could be powerful enough that his needs are not affected, thus there are no consequences for him.

 

Depending on the power wielded is exacty right.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Now' date=' in Aberrant they're the key factors, but Aberrant isn't (as White wolf proclaimed very loudly) as Superhero or a comic book game.[/quote']

 

This was, in my opinion at the time (and still), either disingenuous of them, or simply a cynical marketing ploy to set Aberrant apart from other superhero games. Aberrant clearly depicts a particular sub-genre of the superhero genre, just like Villains & Vigilantes did and Mutants & Masterminds does. Champions' great advantage is that we are not tied to any one sub-genre of superheroes: we can explore them all (although not all of them simultaneously: that would be silly).

 

Hmm... I am probably the last person in this thread to realize it, but just in case I am the second-to-last, I will articulate it anyway: some people have attached more emotional baggage to the term "superhero" than others. That emotional baggage does not necessarily have to do with any specific sub-genre, although in this particular thread it does seem to have been attached to the 1960s-1970s style superheroes more than any other.

 

I do not intend this to mean that people should not have brought their emotional baggage into the discussion: we are irrational creatures, myself included, and such objectivity would be unnatural. I do think it would be productive for us each to realize that when we use the word "superhero", and someone else finds our use of the term infuriatingly limiting (or infuriatingly expansive, for that matter), that we consider the possibility that we might be projecting what we think superheroes ideally ought to be, rather than what they can reasonably be described as being (in the source material, that is -- isolated from the source material, the term has no meaning at all, and may as well be discarded for something more clinically descriptive, such as "paranormal" or "transhuman" or simply "super", as RDU Neil just did).

 

[edit: added "super" at end]

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

And I'm waiting for Wanderer to show up and state that "courageous and noble" would be destroying polluting factories and sinking whaling ships and executing Shrub is exactly that.

 

 

Speak not the name of the beast lest you call his attention to you!

 

Oh, wait...that's Cthulhu or something. Nevermind.

 

(just kiddin', Wanderer!)

 

And becareful of using society as a judge... there are plenty of societies that have demonstrated wholesale slaughter as a moral standard.

 

 

But that's acceptable. To the Nazis (and I mean those in charge, not the everyday "following orders" soldier), a superhero might very well be one who is able to systematically decimate their foes, whether it's the Allied powers at Normandy or thousands of Jews at Auschwitz (the fabled "WarHawk"). Different moral for different people. Cannibals may view their superhero as one who can eat people in mere seconds (the legendary "Captain Pirahna!"). A Quaker society might have a superhero who's sole power is to be able to make crops grow (the mythical "Brother Green").

 

Society has to point the way. That's why I said interpretation is allowed in one's definition of moral and ethical guidelines. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

See, every definition is based off of another definition, which in the end are nothing more than poorly expressed (by all humans, not you in particular) abstract concepts we try to use to communicate our needs. They fall apart even further when you begin to posit metahumans (those of sufficiently expanded powers to put them beyond basic human needs) into the mix. At that point, we can only debate and surmise what would be ethical for them, as it is beyond our ability to know.

 

 

Well, it's all just theory and speculation, of course. That's what makes it fun.

 

Otherwise it'd be like work, and that'd just suck.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

RDU Neil,

 

Perhaps you should start a thread concerning the issues you wish to discuss. To try to intentionally sidetrack this thread from it's creator's original purpose would be wrong in my opinion. And I'm not accusing anyone of that either.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Actually... I'm trying in my own long winded, indirect way, to answer Nexus by saying... "How do I handle CvK in my superhero games? I handle them by not PLAYING superhero games (as defined by Nexus) because I find them intellectually untenable. I therefore change the premise of the game to something I can grasp... what I have no other term for than "metahuman" role playing."

 

I just found that such questions as the CvK questions were those that I explored years ago, and found that they couldn't be properly addressed if you stuck to some kind of narrow genre concept (that no one can really agree upon anyway, as shown by this thread).

 

To me, the CvK qusetion, and those like it, completely invalidate the "superhero" genre to anyone who takes half an analytical eye to the issue.

 

But then... that's just me... I deconstruct everything, accept nothing as absolute, and all truth is addended by "... but if..."

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

But then... that's just me... I deconstruct everything' date=' accept nothing as absolute, and all truth is addended by "... but if..."[/quote']

 

 

Are you an engineer?

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually... I'm trying in my own long winded, indirect way, to answer Nexus by saying... "How do I handle CvK in my superhero games? I handle them by not PLAYING superhero games (as defined by Nexus) because I find them intellectually untenable. I therefore change the premise of the game to something I can grasp... what I have no other term for than "metahuman" role playing."

 

I just found that such questions as the CvK questions were those that I explored years ago, and found that they couldn't be properly addressed if you stuck to some kind of narrow genre concept (that no one can really agree upon anyway, as shown by this thread).

 

To me, the CvK qusetion, and those like it, completely invalidate the "superhero" genre to anyone who takes half an analytical eye to the issue.

 

But then... that's just me... I deconstruct everything, accept nothing as absolute, and all truth is addended by "... but if..."

Hmmmm...

 

So it would seem that you would only run a Superhero game, where the Superheroes involved, regardless of the powers they wielded, could by be made to suffer by the society, thereby having consequences enforced upon the Superheroes for the actions they take.

 

Am I correct? Or just don't understand?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In response to John T's "question for the 'heroes don't kill' camp", JohnOSpencer replied:

 

Why? What type of campaign are you talking about? The 4-color "heroes can't kill" campaign?

 

As I've said before, CVK only means something if killing is an option. If the GM always presents/provides a way out, then CVK is just free points? Any hero (super or not) that would kill in a situation when killing isn't necessary isn't a hero (and in such campaign take an appropriate PsychLim to represent his lethal nature, assuming it's even permitted by the GM).

 

CVK is still a limitation in those campaigns, just because it is encouraged dosen't mean it is useless. The characters in those campaigns who can kill have it easier, since they have more options. The CVK may have to sacrifice his life or face serious injury where the non-CVK character can just kill the badguy instead.

 

This whole discussion is kinda amusing because we all responding based on what our own definitions of "superhero" are. We all play in different camapaigns with different styles, different levels of reality and so on. Not sure what point I'm making, but I just felt like saying what most of us are probably thinking.

 

John