Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

nexus

Code VS Killing Poll

Recommended Posts

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Batman doesn't kill normally. However when the vampire storyline came along, out went the code vs killing.

 

Presumably he didn't see Vampires as "alive", and thus he wasn't actually killing anything. Not that I've seen the issues in question, but I suspect that's the rationale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Presumably he didn't see Vampires as "alive"' date=' and thus he wasn't actually [b']killing[/b] anything. Not that I've seen the issues in question, but I suspect that's the rationale.

Yeah, that's pretty common.

 

Put it this way - once I was convinced vampires were real, it's take next to nothing for me to buy the whole "undead" thing and kill them without regard. Except of course the rare vampire who was someone I used to know, like so often in fiction I'm sure that, despite the "training" fiction has provided, it'd take a bit for me to go that extra mile - unless of course they had glowing eyes or acted so outrageously out of character as they often do in fiction, in which case I think I'd overcome any hesitation with ease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yeah, that's pretty common.

 

Put it this way - once I was convinced vampires were real, it's take next to nothing for me to buy the whole "undead" thing and kill them without regard. Except of course the rare vampire who was someone I used to know, like so often in fiction I'm sure that, despite the "training" fiction has provided, it'd take a bit for me to go that extra mile - unless of course they had glowing eyes or acted so outrageously out of character as they often do in fiction, in which case I think I'd overcome any hesitation with ease.

There's nothing quite like glowing eyes and a few attempts to kill you to convince you this friend and loved one just isn't the same anymore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

All depends on the character set up.

I have had some who had the Code vs Killing, others who would kill to save others as a Psy Lim and then those who will kill (Punisher clones).

And then my signature character had the 0 pt Reluctance to Kill which he broke to kill the ex DNPC of the Voidwalker called John Achilles when Achilles was possessed by the Destroyer who had just snuffed out a goodly portion of Birmingham. The Destroyer usually required the entire team to stop him and was out to destroy the whole universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

http://www.batmanytb.com/index5.htm

 

Interesting, too, that the Joker was supposed to die in his first appearance, but the editor nixed that, too, in order to have recurring villains like Dick Tracy. :)

 

 

THIS is where the convention really originated. It didn't take too long for writers and editors to figure out that it was tough to come up with a great new villain every month, and recurring villains made it a whole lot easier. If Batman made a habit of killing his opposition, how many great characters would be complete unknowns to readers of today, or even readers who fiurst picked up a comic in the '60's or '70's?

 

As to the poll, this will come down to preferred genre. 1-2 is Golden/Silver Age. 4/5 is solid Iron Age. When Wolverinme first came out, he was pretty much unique in his willingness to take lethal action, and he still rarely killed anyone. There was a huge controversy over an early Savage Land storyline where it was implied he killed a guard. The letters page ultimately resolved it with an "official" statement that, once off-panel, Wolvie sheathed his claws and KO'd the guard with his fists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bblackmoor

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The letters page ultimately resolved it with an "official" statement that' date=' once off-panel, Wolvie sheathed his claws and KO'd the guard with his fists.[/quote']

 

That's just pathetic. :tonguewav

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That's just pathetic. :tonguewav

 

Fandom spoke. The creators answered. Probably would have been different if we'd seen Wolvie's actions on panel (if only because backpedalling would have been harder).

 

It wasn't much after that (about the mid-140's) when Storm took over leadership and laid down the law that Wolverine was not to use his claws in anything but the most dire of circumstances. IIRC, that followed shortly after Logan stated his personal philosophy as "If a man comes at me with his fists, I'll meet him with my fists. If he pulls a gun, or threatens people I'm protecting, then he's made his bed." or some such. At that point, I'd put him at a 3, moving towards a 4 - not unwilling to kill, but not taking it as a given either.

 

The character hasn't always been the Hack & Slasher's Poster Boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In fact, during the Dark Phoenix storyline, Wolverine fairly explicitly killed three Hellfire Club guards (claws out, panels all coloured red). And then later, it was revealed that the guards didn't die, but were made into cyborgs instead.

 

They went though some pretty convoluted steps to avoid Wolverine having killed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest bblackmoor

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Little Susie: Are they dead, Uncle wolfie?

 

Uncle Wolfie: Uh, no, they're uh... sleeping. Yeah, they're sleeping, and dreaming of gumdrops and rainbows and kittens and all that happy BS. Now watch your step, don't slip in the blood ... er, cherry sauce...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'm most comfortable playing and GMing characters with some form of CvK. Most of the time, they're total, but sometimes it's interesting to run modified versions. For instance, I once ran a vigilante with no CvK but a Code of Honor that basically said using weapons on an unarmed target was cheating. I hadn't seen the Wolverine quote Hugh cited when I wrote her up, but the attitude is the same.

 

I've also run a villain who saw most killing as counterproductive, so didn't kill unless it was really necessary (and the game fizzled before it ever became necessary). She was a villain because she wanted to show she was superior to others, corpses don't admit someone else is superior, living people can, therefore .... Not a true CvK, but for the most part run as if she had one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I generally prefer to play 2/3. I often won't put a CVK on the sheet, but will play it at this level.

 

Superheroes shouldn't kill if they can avoid it. As has been mentioned in other similar threads, "if you want Silver Age heroes, make Silver Age villains" - so a lot of the killing can be avoided by how the GM makes the bad guys. If you introduce a Joker-esque nutjob who kills and kills, then when finally captured unstoppably teleports away to kill again and again, I would be very surprised if the characters don't finally kill him, or quit the game in frustration. On the other side of the coin, players need to show restraint - don't toss the bucket of hand grenades into the children's ward of the local hospital just because you saw Bulldozer duck in the door, don't make your lead-off attack a 6d6 KA vs. people you aren't sure can take it, etc.

 

Generally as a superhero, I will kill:

 

-if the thingie is a demon/undead/etc. I don't consider it protected. Unless otherwise shown that they are really "alive", can be redeemed, etc., destroying them is fine.

 

-If the person involved has killed, will likely kill again AND

 

a) the justice system/prisons have no hope to deal with/hold them, so they will soon be out killing again. Even a fairly regular "revolving-door" Stronghold setup should be OK for most villains, but if you know Stronghold can't hold this guy for 5 minutes (particular power, whatever), he may be fair game.

 

or

 

B) the GM has set it up that killing them is the only way to stop them. If the villain cannot be reasoned with, teleports away from all grabs/entangles or easily breaks free, and is built as a "takes only body" automaton, fair game.

 

But otherwise, don't kill. Let the system handle them if it can. If it's a non-killing villain, heroes shouldn't kill them, and in fact should risk their own lives to save them if necessary. Even if it's a murdering villain, if the system can cope with them, KO them and throw 'em in Stronghold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Do you prefer to play Superheroes that:

 

1. Will not Kill (Code vs Killing Ver Com, Total)

 

2. Will kill under extreme duress (Com, Stro)

 

3. Seek to avoid it, but will if the situation demands it (Com,mod)

 

4. Feel its a war and if there are casualties that is the nature of war (No CAK)

 

5. Justice sometimes demands death (Vigilante Mentality)

Personally, I would choose to play #3, but only because that's the one description that is most clear.

 

As a GM, I impose a Reluctant To Kill (CVK, Uncommon, Moderate) for zeor points to prevent players from taking Casual Killer, Blood Lust, and so forth.

 

I'm not sure on the extremes for #1 and #2.

 

Does #1 mean that if the Hero when presented with a single choice of Killing or Being Killed, that he will choose death. Not sure I wouild find such a character fun to play and somewhat useless since he would undoubtably be trying to keep everyone else from killing and being killled. Not a team player.

 

What does #2 mean by extreme duress? Will kill only if life or other lives are in danger, or that the hero is being tortured? Or if someone has a gun in the Heroes back ordering him to kill someone else? It's very subjective and I can't really make a comment on it one way or another.

 

Perhaps some example of people/characters for each level might have been helpful.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Waffling a bit (;) ): As a player, I tend towards the bottom half (3,4,or 5). If I had to pick just one, I'd say my heart was mostly with 5 (yeah, I'm down with expediency :rolleyes: ). As a GM, I run my games in a way to encourage my players to be in the top half (1,2,or 3).

 

What's up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Back in the Silver Age' date=' in the pages of All Star Squadron, Superman and the Justice Society along with the Marvel Family killed several ordinary people in the waters outside of Great Britian(Okay, so it was WWII)[/quote']All-Star Squadron was an 80s comic which puts it well outside the Silver Age by almost anyone's definition, including mine. 80s = Bronze Age/Iron Age transition period.

 

BTW I'd be very interested if anyone does have any examples of Silver Age heroes killing. AFAIK there aren't any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

As to the poll' date=' this will come down to preferred genre. 1-2 is Golden/Silver Age. 4/5 is solid Iron Age. [/quote']The Golden Age was rather different from the Silver Age in terms of heroes who kill:

 

1) There were a number of (obscure, admittedly) killer vigilantes such as the Hangman.

 

2) Very early on Superman and Batman were both prepared to kill. In Batman #1 (1940) the caped crusader machineguns some thugs driving a truck with the words "Much as I hate to take human life I'm afraid this time it's necessary." I understand that both Supes and Bats quit the killing early on though, something like a year after they debuted I believe.

 

3) Though I've not seen any examples, I read somewhere that Bucky used to be a vicious little tyke, shooting and grenading Nazis with abandon.

 

4) In his very first appearance in 1939, Namor kills a couple of deep sea divers. He stabs one and crushes the helmet of the other - quite gruesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The Golden Age was rather different from the Silver Age in terms of heroes who kill:

 

1) There were a number of (obscure, admittedly) killer vigilantes such as the Hangman.

 

2) Very early on Superman and Batman were both prepared to kill. In Batman #1 (1940) the caped crusader machineguns some thugs driving a truck with the words "Much as I hate to take human life I'm afraid this time it's necessary." I understand that both Supes and Bats quit the killing early on though, something like a year after they debuted I believe.

 

3) Though I've not seen any examples, I read somewhere that Bucky used to be a vicious little tyke, shooting and grenading Nazis with abandon.

 

4) In his very first appearance in 1939, Namor kills a couple of deep sea divers. He stabs one and crushes the helmet of the other - quite gruesome.

Wasn't Namor an anti-hero in the beginning? Nit-pick, perhaps, but wanted to raise the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

#5 isn't really an option for me if I'm thinking of the character as a "Superhero", regardless of setting.

 

#3 & 4 are my usual "settings" for supers, though I don't always take the disad for someone I'm playing as #3, and even someone who's clearly #4 would consider ALL other options before making the decision to kill.

 

#1 & 2 are, to my mind, very campaign/setting-specific: if it's absolutely clear at the beginning that that's the type of campaign the character's in, that's what I play.

 

Question for the "Heroes NEVER Kill" camp: What happens when a villain with a known murderous streak threatens an innocent with certain and instantaneous death, unless you comply with "X" immediately? Hint: Hitting said villain with your stongest attack and HOPING or ASSUMING he'll survive is, IMHO, the same as choosing to kill. Let's also assume for the moment that you can't entangle the villain, put some kind of defense on the impending victim, or teleport either target. Basically, you can't just negate the threat, you have to use a damaging attack.

 

I'm not looking for an answer that depends on individual character-design aesthetics ("I always design my characters with 'X' ability").

 

NOT wanting to start an argument here, just curious.

 

John T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That depends on your definition of anti-hero' date=' I guess. He was certainly the protagonist at any rate.[/quote']

To clarify: IIRC (and I may not), he was a villain to "regular" humans (not so unusual of course to be fair) but not only that, he actually did dislike humans in general and while he would help an "innocent" his means and motives were of a nobility foreign to man and as such, like John Constantine but moreso, he was essentially an utter ruthless bastard in dealing the "surface dwellers". His charm came as much, I think, from his rogue, even outlaw nature, as from his populist attitude when it came to those directly oppressed - but only those people.

 

Fair/unfair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Question for the "Heroes NEVER Kill" camp: What happens when a villain with a known murderous streak threatens an innocent with certain and instantaneous death, unless you comply with "X" immediately? Hint: Hitting said villain with your stongest attack and HOPING or ASSUMING he'll survive is, IMHO, the same as choosing to kill. Let's also assume for the moment that you can't entangle the villain, put some kind of defense on the impending victim, or teleport either target. Basically, you can't just negate the threat, you have to use a damaging attack.

 

1) It depends on what 'comply with X' actually is; if it means the hero has to surrender and allow himself to be captured, I'd surrender in a heartbeat if it meant saving someones life.

 

2) If I'm playing a hero with a clear, total CvK, and the GM puts me in a situation where I have to kill or allow someone to die, I would assume that I'm not playing in the right campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

In my campaigns, heroes previously didn't kill or take other similar actions because superheroes were always on shaky legal ground, but the public loved 'em and it was considered career suicide for a politician to push for stronger anti-hero laws. The prevalent mind set was "Nobody rock the boat".

 

Most of the time legalities never really came into play because captured villains pretty much confessed to their crimes ("BAH !

I almost got away with it if not for the cursed interference of the Big Blue Cheese ! BAH !") or would show up at their trial in their costumes (against the advice of their lawyers). It really could only get tricky vs. normal thugs/criminals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...