Code VS Killing Poll

[Agent X]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Exactly' date=' 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...[/quote'] Superman is effectively human in the ways that matter. Does he not love? Does he not feel? Does he not bleed (if you you have a kryptonite monoblade handy)? Superman's abilities are exaggerated but his emotions are all human.

[JohnOSpencer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

 

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.

Actually it was a recent issue of JLA. And it was Superman.

 

John

[Whitewings]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It always amazed me that no psychiatrist would ever find the Joker competent to stand trial--he appears to be "legally sane" by the definition of most court systems...

 

Considering that many people (rightly or not) regard the Joker as the archetype of teh insane supervillain, perhaps you could explain just how he qualifies as "legally sane"?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Considering that many people (rightly or not) regard the Joker as the archetype of teh insane supervillain' date=' perhaps you could explain just how he qualifies as "legally sane"?[/quote']

well, he knows that his actions are wrong, and he has a high degree of control over his actions--that fits the legal definition of sanity. Serial killers are obviously mentally ill, but legally sane in most cases.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Superman is effectively human in the ways that matter. Does he not love? Does he not feel? Does he not bleed (if you you have a kryptonite monoblade handy)? Superman's abilities are exaggerated but his emotions are all human.

Although I know what you mean, and I know that's intended, I have never felt that way. I never had an emotional connection to him and always felt (as a few do) that as Clark Kent he simply "played at" being human while as Superman he had great empathy but not the real emotions of a human.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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

This is why I think it's important to understand the context, and why I think the fundamental question is (first assuming the context is 4-color, which most are speaking to) "what qualifies as 4-color".

[zornwil]

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..."

I would be interested in playing in a campaign of yours someday, were the opportunity to present itself.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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]

Although I know why you say this, I don't feel like M&M really is so specific to a sub-genre; I think it's range is more akin to Champions, even if not so great on the more powerful and less powerful ends. OTOH, I really got the impression that the makers of SAS would come to your house and beat you up for not playing a proper Silver Age game (although to be fair it struck me that the mechanics would generally work across superhero genres, probably with some recosting necessary though).

[Agent X]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Although I know what you mean' date=' and I know that's intended, I have never felt that way. I never had an emotional connection to him and always felt (as a few do) that as Clark Kent he simply "played at" being human while as Superman he had great [b']empathy[/b] but not the real emotions of a human.

Strange, so many stories have been told about how frustrating his Superman responsibilities are and how he much more enjoys relating to others as Clark Kent.

[zornwil]

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.

 

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.)

Setting aside the various snipings, I find it interesitng in that my FIRST supers campaign was hardly heroic, it was simply super people doing good and bad things. We had an entirely different ethical sense and world setting. But not so much realistic as you are into.

[Dust Raven]

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']

Even so, I'd still be human and would hold to that moral standard.

 

Then again, I hold gods to the same moral standard that I hold myself and all humanity. It doesn't make a difference to me. Why would it be different? Why should it?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

Human existance has nothing to do with needs. He exist without them, and will for all eternity. Sure, we as animals have physical necessities for survival, but survival isn't the same thing. I'm probably not making any sense with this...

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.

One thing we must all keep in mind is that we have no other perspectives than the human. There is no way to compare. Of course, from my human perspective, the magnatude of one's capabilities simply, logically, can't have any bearing on morality and ethics.

 

By your arguement, Dr. Destroyer is just and right in his choses path of conquering the Earth. Or rather, he's not wrong, or evil. I can't accept that. If I were to steal or murder, I'd be in the wrong, regardless if I were myself or Dr. Destroyer or a god.

 

Ethics and morality are universal concepts and apply to everyone.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I don't feel like M&M really is so specific to a sub-genre... OTOH' date=' I really got the impression that the makers of SAS would come to your house and beat you up for not playing a proper Silver Age game[/quote']

 

You're right, that would have been a much better example. Ah, well.

[Dust Raven]

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

That's different than morality and ethics. This is law and judgement. In a world without superheroes, a supervillain would certainly find it easier to escape punishment due to law, but there actions would still have repurcussion within society. Imagine if a metahuman just decided to destroy L.A. one day. Killed everyone. Everyone. Let's also say he's so powerful that there's nothing anyone can do about it. Does anyone think he'll find it easy to make friends among decent people? If he suddenly moved into your city, whould you think about moving?

 

In any case, it doesn't mater if you can't be caught and brought to justice. Wrong is wrong. Ask any victim of a normal human, real life, criminal that got away with it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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.

Okay, I'm confused as to what you're saying.

 

If someone can do something, and get away with it, they did not comit an amoral act? Please correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. By my definition, doing something just cuz you can get away with it is amoral. Or at least unethical.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

One thing we must all keep in mind is that we have no other perspectives than the human. ... Ethics and morality are universal concepts and apply to everyone.

 

The first statement does not imply the second. It strongly implies its opposite, actually.

 

Should we judge the behavior of animals, or superheroes, or gods, by human standards? Of course we should: we're human, and we are the ones doing the judging.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

CVK is still a limitation in those campaigns' date=' 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.[/quote']

I was specifically refering to the campaigns where, by definition of the sub-genre, killing for the player characters is not an option. The GM, as required by the sub-genre, must provide a way to solve any dilema without killing.

 

In those campaigns, CVK is worthless as a Disad. A Disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth any points.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The first statement does not imply the second. It strongly implies its opposite' date=' actually.[/quote']

In what way?

 

Should we judge the behavior of animals, or superheroes, or gods, by human standards? Of course we should: we're human, and we are the ones doing the judging.

Animals, no. Animals act primarily on instincts and conditioning rather than reason. No reason, no morality or ethics.

 

If one could prove to me that metahumans, deities and such are incapable of reason, then I'd say that morality won't apply, but until then...

 

The capablility of reason, the ability to choose, and similiar traits define morality and ethics. These same traits are possessed by metahumans (using the various genres as reference, since we have none of our own). My personal believe is that deities have them as well, but I suppose that's the subject of another topic.

 

So me a metahuman that can't reason or make his own choices (and I mean can't; submissives make the choice to do what others tell them to), and I'll show you someone that morality and ethics don't apply to.

[nexus]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

All right, I'm coming back into this after having a very poor day so this will likely seem more annoyed than it is, so please bear with me. But I really don't understand where this has drifted too at this point. I'm not going to claim to be a genius, or even particularly above average intelligence but I do accept the concept of genre. I understand that there are certain tropes, cliches and convention that determine genre. Some of them vary on a personal level, others don't. But you do have to accept them if you want to simulate that genre. Deconstructionism is fine. Examing the the conventions in a new light is fine, but they are there. I can understand questioning or playing around them though. I've started a couple of Non Gaming discussion threads about doing that very thing with movies.

 

Now, I've been called snide. That was probably just an internet misunderstanding. And I have also been called shallow and "limited" (implied stupid I guess) for focussing on what Champions seems to be about. Role playing superheroes as portrayed in comic books. When I game Champions, no, I am not seeking to explore the vastness of human nature or explore transhumanity. I am seeking to role play a certain genre, however ill defined and personal it might be.

 

Whats come down here is that superheroes, as a concept, have been proven to be a personal and irrealistic concept. Well, I've always known they are. But does it matter? Some things are just meant to be entertaining. Now, I'm talking about Champions, not Hero. You can use Hero to play a deep and philisophical game exploring the nature of Transhumanity and all that which would be a great deal of fun, but I don't think, IMO, you could be playing Champions at that point. Once you eliminate the concept of Superheroes (and, by connection Supervillians) you've kind of left Champions, as a game behind. That's fine, but it seems odd to get that deep into it on the Champions list. So I guess I am shallow and limited (stupid).

[Agent X]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

All right, I'm coming back into this after having a very poor day so this will likely seem more annoyed than it is, so please bear with me. But I really don't understand where this has drifted too at this point. I'm not going to claim to be a genius, or even particularly above average intelligence but I do accept the concept of genre. I understand that there are certain tropes, cliches and convention that determine genre. Some of them vary on a personal level, others don't. But you do have to accept them if you want to simulate that genre. Deconstructionism is fine. Examing the the conventions in a new light is fine, but they are there. I can understand questioning or playing around them though. I've started a couple of Non Gaming discussion threads about doing that very thing with movies.

 

Now, I've been called snide. That was probably just an internet misunderstanding. And I have also been called shallow and "limited" (implied stupid I guess) for focussing on what Champions seems to be about. Role playing superheroes as portrayed in comic books. When I game Champions, no, I am not seeking to explore the vastness of human nature or explore transhumanity. I am seeking to role play a certain genre, however ill defined and personal it might be.

 

Whats come down here is that superheroes, as a concept, have been proven to be a personal and irrealistic concept. Well, I've always known they are. But does it matter? Some things are just meant to be entertaining. Now, I'm talking about Champions, not Hero. You can use Hero to play a deep and philisophical game exploring the nature of Transhumanity and all that which would be a great deal of fun, but I don't think, IMO, you could be playing Champions at that point. Once you eliminate the concept of Superheroes (and, by connection Supervillians) you've kind of left Champions, as a game behind. That's fine, but it seems odd to get that deep into it on the Champions list. So I guess I am shallow and limited (stupid).

Not at all. I just think you have better things to do than contemplate your navel.

[assault]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Whats come down here is that superheroes' date=' as a concept, have been proven to be a personal and irrealistic concept. Well, I've always known they are. But does it matter? Some things are just meant to be entertaining. Now, I'm talking about Champions, not Hero. You can use Hero to play a deep and philisophical game exploring the nature of Transhumanity and all that which would be a great deal of fun, but I don't think, IMO, you could be playing Champions at that point. Once you eliminate the concept of Superheroes (and, by connection Supervillians) you've kind of left Champions, as a game behind. That's fine, but it seems odd to get that deep into it on the Champions list. So I guess I am shallow and limited (stupid).[/quote']

 

This is why, ultimately, my games are all "Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen".

 

I can do philosophy. I have been known to write some pretty serious stuff in the Real World. I could, for example, write a pretty good essay about "Marxist Critiques of Post-Modernism" or something of the sort, if I felt the need.

 

If I wanted to, I could probably design a world where a bunch of supers attempted to follow Wanderer's ethical standards, and other supers attempted to stop them. In a truly "supers in the real world", my character would be very tempted to get into fights with all the other supers who would be attempting to extend the Pax Americana to North Korea, the Sudan, Iran, or where ever else, totally regardless of the governments of those countries. Or else I might just play a shiftless super-playboy, who becomes humanity's last hope when the other supers decide they have finished pretending to be bound by human morality...

 

But really, all of this isn't something to do regularly. In the end I still play Champions for relaxation and fun. If I want to muck about with politics, than I'll do real world politics. If I want to dream of wearing a cape and going "whoosh" when I fly past, I'll play Champions.

 

Oh, and for the record, the Marxist critique of Postmodernism boils down to "but the world is real, stupid! *Thwack!*"

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Ball of confusion... (nanana na na)...that's what this thread is today...HEY HEY!

[megaplayboy]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well, what about heroes who can resurrect the dead? Are there characters who'd find that morally objectionable? After all, It's not actually that expensive, and might fit conception for a handful of character types.

 

"You know, Bruce, I can bring your parents back..."

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Well, what about heroes who can resurrect the dead? Are there characters who'd find that morally objectionable? After all, It's not actually that expensive, and might fit conception for a handful of character types.

 

"You know, Bruce, I can bring your parents back..."

That's kinda funny, because the most murderous character in the campiagn I'm running has a ressurection spell. It only works on the recently dead, and then only if the body is relatively intact (i.e.: not many dice). It doesn't give him a reason to kill. He doesn't ressurect anyone he kills, only innocent bystandards killed by the person he kills.

 

Of course, I think throughout the course of our 2 years and running campaign, running sessions about twice a month, he's only killed 3 people. All normal humans. Normal humans with big heavy guns and a bus full of special ed students and his son.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The first statement does not imply the second. It strongly implies its opposite, actually.

 

Should we judge the behavior of animals, or superheroes, or gods, by human standards? Of course we should: we're human, and we are the ones doing the judging.

 

Exactly and exactly.

 

While the concept of morals doesn't apply to animals (and IMO nor does it apply to sufficiently powerful supers/metahumans/what have you) it doesn't mean the humans don't or shouldn't judge them based on human standards... that is all any human can do. To us, they are immoral... BUT...

 

... if we are trying to play a game where we act out what it MIGHT be like to be a metahuman, couldn't it be just as important to try and conceive of and play a distant, aloof, non-human super... to try to see things through that perspective (however imperfectly and ultimately futile that would prove) as it is to play out our anthropomorphised supers? I think so, but hey, do what you want. In fact, that is why I always like "lower level" supers games... because they still fit in the human realm. You can still judge actions by human standards... the PCs still have a human basis to judge their own actions. It has only been in the last few years, after some PCs have begun to play with the "Threshold" to godhood in my games, that the players began to really find themselves hugely distanced from humans... acting high and far above humanity, though with "best interests" at heart... and really struggling with the realization of how their pending actions could affect humanity and saying, "But does that really bother me anymore? Can't I justify this from a higher perspective? Is this what Dr. Destroyer believed, before he died?"

 

It's great stuff, in my mind, and many of the players like it as well.

 

I should note though that it isn't like my games are steeped in this heavy shit all the time... just that I've thought about it, and as a GM, I don't make a decision that violates the essential premise behind my game (unless I screw up.) Many games would seem very straight forward in their "superheroness" on an individual level... just that the bigger picture allows for more variation, and some extrapolation to really explore "what if" rather than just maintain the status quo.

 

Heck... tonight's game was nothing like what we are talking about here. It was about three young people coming to terms with magical abilities and hints of destiny in an England (in my supers universe) that has seen the return of magic... wrapped up in the politics of Seelie court, machinations of lich lords, befriending local supers trying to support the common man, and seeing a resurgence of royalist thinking that looks at the return of magic as a sign to overthrow the Magna Carta and re-establish the monarchy by divine right... and lots of other stuff... including smooshing zombies along the Thames. (It did end with a two hour testing conversation with an Unseelie Lord "Fa'ton the Paingiver" who was looking to manipulate the PCs against Titania so that the Unseelie Court could take it's place... and this brought up questions of sacrifice of others, self sacrifice, loyalty, oaths, etc., but hey... that was all good, devious, fey politics... nothing more...)