Code VS Killing Poll

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Oh' date=' and for the record, the Marxist critique of Postmodernism boils down to "but the world is real, stupid! *Thwack!*" [/quote']

 

Y'know... I read that as "but the world is real stupid!" (note the lack of comma) which is a sentiment I feel 50% of every day!

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

"You know' date=' Bruce, I can bring your parents back..." [/quote']

You are a Very Bad Man... I like it.

 

John T

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Seeing where this thread has gone since I last looked at it, waaay back in post #360-something, made me want to dig up a research paper I did at NMSU back in '86.

 

In a nutshell, I studied Evil as an empirical concept, rather than as defined by an observer. Fun stuff. Obliquely relevant to the discussion of (super)heroism in that I had to spend some time deifning "Good" by the same means.

 

John T

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

... if we are trying to play a game where we act out what it MIGHT be like to be a metahuman' date=' 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. [/quote']

The flaw I find in your reasoning is it puts megalomanichial madmen above human judgement. Just because some has the power to do something, doesn't mean it's okay to do so.

 

I have to power to walk across the street and kill the family that lives there. I'd probably never get caught. Who'd know? Dark neighborhood. I don't know them personally, so there's no connection. Say I do it. Say I believe that it was okay for me to do it. It's what I believe. I have the ability to do this afterall. That doesn't keep it from being wrong (I won't say evil, because I lack belief in such a concept). My own moral standards keep me from doing so (that, and even without morals, I probably wouldn't want to kill them anyway ).

 

But I'm human, and any human can do this. So I can be judge by human sense of morals.

 

Okay, I'm me, but now I've been struck by a radiactive lightning bolt and don't need to sleep or eat and I can teleport. I'm now, inhuman, and can do things humanity simply can't. I can't see how morals wouldn't come into play if I went across the street to kill people. Wouldn't it still be wrong?

 

Wouldn't it?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Seeing where this thread has gone since I last looked at it, waaay back in post #360-something, made me want to dig up a research paper I did at NMSU back in '86.

 

In a nutshell, I studied Evil as an empirical concept, rather than as defined by an observer. Fun stuff. Obliquely relevant to the discussion of (super)heroism in that I had to spend some time deifning "Good" by the same means.

 

John T

Could be an interesting read..

 

Cool new avatar BTW.

[John T]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Could be an interesting read...

I'll have to see if I can scout it up. Knowing me, I've got it stored amid my other gaming resources somewhere.

Cool new avatar BTW.

Thanks! Illustrator is my friend. I wonder if there's a market for unique message board avatars?

 

John T

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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

 

 

Yup, yup... I got that. Been reminding a few people this too.

 

And thank you for bringing it up again, it's an important frame of reference.

 

Mags

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In all this discussion about transhumanity and whether human morals apply to the superhuman, I think something was lost in all of this. Specifically, I think that people lost sight of the fact that superhumans, in nearly every case you can think of when you go to the source information, are "human beings plus superpowers" and not "inherently superpowered beings".

 

With a few exceptions, we're not talking about the Gods come down from their Olympus (or Asgard, as it were)... we're talking about everyday schlubs who had, as the saying goes, "greatness thrust upon them".

 

Though they gain superhuman abilities, they retain (again, with a few exceptions) the patterns of thought that make a human being human. Thus, their attitudes, ideals, ethics, and morals follow them into transhumanity.

 

And thus the question is moot. Of course human morals apply... because the superhumans are still human at the core.

[SKJAM!]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I personally prefer to play #2, but have varied between 1-2-3 in my player characters in superhero games--with one major exception, a character whose power was inflicting upon others the damage they'd done to him. If they did enough damage to kill him (had it not been for his Regeneration with Adder), they died. He rather quickly defaulted to #4 for obvious reasons.

 

Currently, I am GMing one of the very few games in the Global Guardians universe that does *not* require some form of Code vs. Killing. However, the characters belong to an organization that has a "no killing" rule, and the penalty for breaking it is expulsion (in addition to any criminal or civil penalties that would normally occur.) So in the event of a circumstance where killing would be the fastest and most efficient method of success...the characters will have to make their own decisions, and live with the consequences.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Animals' date=' no. Animals act primarily on instincts and conditioning rather than reason. No reason, no morality or ethics.[/quote']

 

Irrelevent. If a dog helps me during a camping trip, it's a good dog. If a squirrel damages my property, it's a bad squirrel. I could care less if it is doing what it thinks is "good", or just following its instincts. I'm the human, and I define what is right.

 

In a human world, or a human game-world, it's the humans who determine good and bad, hero and villain. This doesn't mean that the humans are always right, or that all humans will agree, but that's perfectly okay. Just because it's subjective doesn't mean that it's incorrect.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Now' date=' I've been called snide.[/quote']

 

I do not think you have been snide.

 

And I have also been called shallow and "limited" (implied stupid I guess) for focussing on what Champions seems to be about.

 

I could be mistaken, but I think that was directed at either Wanderer or Worldmaker (by the other one, probably).

 

As for what Champions seems to be about, I'm going to start a new thread for that, because it's really so distant a tangent from this one that it doesn't belong here.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I could be mistaken' date=' but I think that was directed at either Wanderer or Worldmaker (by the other one, probably).[/quote']

 

It was directed at me, by Dust Raven. All part of the Behavioral Double Standard here on the Hero Boards.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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' date=' thus there are no consequences for him.[/quote']

 

To me, this is what makes Supers like Superman more heroic. They follow a moral/ethical path despite the fact that society could not enforce same on them. Maybe I hate my boss, but I don't try to cuase him physical injury, becuase I know I'd be fired, get charged with assault, go to jail, etc.

 

Were I a "Superman", I could ignore all these ramifications. Thus, the only reason I restrain my baser impulses is personal morals and ethics. I'm not afraid of the consequences because I need never face them.

 

The level of "Super" doesn't determine what is moral and ethical behaviour. The moral fibre to use "great power" with "great responsibility", however, is a large part of defining "Hero". At least in my opinion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was specifically refering to the campaigns where' date=' by definition of the sub-genre, killing for the player characters [i']is not an option[/i]. 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.

 

This, to me, would be a case for saying "everyone has CvK as a zero point disadvantage". It establishes the baseline, much as many heroic campaigns impose Normal Characteristic Maxima as a 0 point disadvantage.

 

You could just as easily say "everyone must take a 20 point CvK", but then we've removed 20 points of disadvantages from differntiating one character from the next. I might as well say "Everyone has to take a Dependence on oxygen for 20 points". It's a vulnerability we all have (absent powers circumventing it), not a disadvantage that makes my character different from other characters.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In all this discussion about transhumanity and whether human morals apply to the superhuman, I think something was lost in all of this. Specifically, I think that people lost sight of the fact that superhumans, in nearly every case you can think of when you go to the source information, are "human beings plus superpowers" and not "inherently superpowered beings".

 

With a few exceptions, we're not talking about the Gods come down from their Olympus (or Asgard, as it were)... we're talking about everyday schlubs who had, as the saying goes, "greatness thrust upon them".

 

Though they gain superhuman abilities, they retain (again, with a few exceptions) the patterns of thought that make a human being human. Thus, their attitudes, ideals, ethics, and morals follow them into transhumanity.

 

And thus the question is moot. Of course human morals apply... because the superhumans are still human at the core.

Have you read Moore's Miracleman?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That's kinda funny' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...just to drift further off the point, imagine a truly "vigalante/punish the guilty" character who has the ability to resurrect the dead and uses it to raise opponents so he can kill them again.

 

"One death is not adequate penalty for your crimes. Prepare to die again!

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Hmmm...just to drift further off the point, imagine a truly "vigalante/punish the guilty" character who has the ability to resurrect the dead and uses it to raise opponents so he can kill them again.

 

"One death is not adequate penalty for your crimes. Prepare to die again!

Cool!

 

I always enjoyed the early '70s Spectre's grotesque ways of killing people.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Have you read Moore's Miracleman?

 

Yes, I have. I don't agree with all of Moore's assumptions, but admit he argues a good case. He played the same game with Doctor Manhattan, and I bought it completely with that character.

 

Again, I did allow for some exceptions.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Have you read Moore's Miracleman?

Doctor Manhattan is probably a better example. Miracleman has a multiform in HERO terms. One form (Micky Moran) is completely human , the other (Miracleman) is something beyond human, though still retains a not very well defined connection with Micky Moran.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Irrelevent. If a dog helps me during a camping trip' date=' it's a good dog. If a squirrel damages my property, it's a bad squirrel. I could care less if it is doing what it thinks is "good", or just following its instincts. I'm the human, and I define what is right.[/quote']That's a different sense of good and bad than if you were to ascribe them to a person. When you say a dog is bad you're not saying it's a moral actor, but rather that it has inconvenienced you in some way. In the same way we can describe inanimate objects as good or bad, like saying the Honda Civic is a good car or that Macs are bad computers or that an earthquake that wrecks homes is a bad thing.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Seeing where this thread has gone since I last looked at it, waaay back in post #360-something, made me want to dig up a research paper I did at NMSU back in '86.

 

In a nutshell, I studied Evil as an empirical concept, rather than as defined by an observer. Fun stuff. Obliquely relevant to the discussion of (super)heroism in that I had to spend some time deifning "Good" by the same means.

 

John T

 

Do you have a summary page you could drop my way... a conclusions page or whatever. I'd be interested to see what you came up with.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Even so' date=' I'd still be human and would hold to that moral standard.[/quote']Well there we disagree. In my view, if you were transformed (whether instantly or gradually doesn't matter) into a Culture starship AI, you would no longer be human.

 

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?

If those gods merely possess advanced physical power (superstrength, longevity, etc.) then I don't think it would make a difference. Here I think I might be disagreeing with RDU Neil, not sure what his view is on advanced physical powers. OTOH if we're talking about a being as far beyond human in mental capacity as humanity is beyond an amoeba then to ascribe our morality to such beings is a mistake. Sure we could apply our human concepts to their actions and talk as if such beings had human mentalities but we would be mistaken. In the same way I can imagine the Earth having a mind behind it and say that that mind is morally good when it provides fertile crops and morally bad when it causes earthquakes. But I would be wrong to do so. I'm ascribing human morality to something that doesn't possess it.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

But really' date=' 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.[/quote']Yeah, me too. But I find this to be an interesting discussion nonetheless.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Okay' date=' I'm me, but now I've been struck by a radiactive lightning bolt and don't need to sleep or eat and I can teleport. I'm now, inhuman, and can do things humanity simply can't. I can't see how morals wouldn't come into play if I went across the street to kill people. Wouldn't it still be wrong?[/quote']Yes, yes it would. You have somewhat greater physical power but still have a wholly human mind.

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

If any Superman as at a state where he is no longer subject to human morality then in my view it's the Silver Age version. Iron Age Supes has great physical power and enhanced senses but merely a human level mind. The Silver Age Superman on the other hand was super intelligent.

 

So paradoxically, the only Superman that never killed had the most right to do.