Code VS Killing Poll

[Korvar]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The relevant question is: why would Mr. Invulnerable need any of these things?! One's answer rests largely on one's views regarding the source and purpose of human emotions, so I honestly don't think the question can or will be answered to anyone's satisfaction in this forum.

 

While I have no problem accepting that Mr. Invulnerable desires things, I just don't think he would ever actually need any of the things he desires, so that his desires amount to habits or whims, psychological artifacts of a time when he was not invulnerable.

 

A lot of psychology has gone into these things. We - humans - seem to have an inbuild desire to belong to groups, to feel loved, to feel appreciated. Sufficiently strongly that we are quite capable of doing astonishing things - amazing acts of self-sacrifice, or sickening acts of cruelty - purely in order to "belong". I'm comfortable in calling these "needs".

 

And, as I pointed out in my previous post, it's been part of the "Heirarchy of Needs" theory for quite some time. (i.e. it's not just me making things up, it's me stealing other people's ideas )

 

If we're talking about metahumans, then Mr. Invulnerable is going to still have those needs. They aren't simply desires, and they most certainly aren't whims - they are deep, inbuilt needs.

 

That's assuming that whatever made Mr. Invulnerable invulnerable just affected him physically. Obviously it's possible that whatever-it-was did something to him psychologically, or neurologically. But at that point, you're looking more at mental illness/alien psychology. Which is fine, it's just different from wondering what the effects of powers would be on humans, which I believe is what we were discussing...

 

There are enough interesting byproducts of invulnerability to be getting on with, though. For example, given all his Physiological and Safety needs are taken care of... there's almost no need for him to have a job. And in a society that does tend to see people by what they do, that could be interesting. His choices of any jobs he does take would be driven more by social, self-esteem and self-actualisation, than "I need to pay the rent!".

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Oh whatever' date=' why do I even bother getting into forums and boards. Its just an excersize in frustration.[/quote']Exercise is good for you.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

For example' date=' given all his Physiological and Safety needs are taken care of... there's almost no need for him to have a job. And in a society that does tend to see people by what they do, that could be interesting. His choices of any jobs he does take would be driven more by social, self-esteem and self-actualisation, than "I need to pay the rent!".[/quote']

 

It is not at all uncommon for the spouses of the very rich to devote their time to humanitarian causes. It gives them a feeling of accomplishment and self-worth, or so I'm told.

[Korvar]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was actually going to make some kind of link between they hypothetical Mr. Invulnerable and The Filthy Rich. In many ways, The Filthy Rich have their basic Physiological and Safety needs dealt with (okay, they still actually need to eat and sleep and so forth - but they never have any serious obstacles to overcome in doing that).

 

I've also thought about how analogous Being Filthy Rich can be to Having Superpowers. You can do things no mortal can, and before long your life bears little relation to that of Normal People. Some use their money/power to do good; others use their money/power to increase their power. And others use their money/power just to live pleasantly.

 

And there are some rich people who think that being rich so removes them from normal society that they don't feel bound by society's rules, kind of like some feel superhumans would feel.

[Kraken]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

If we're talking about metahumans' date=' then Mr. Invulnerable is going to still have those needs. They aren't simply desires, and they most certainly aren't whims - they are deep, inbuilt needs.[/quote']

As far as I can tell, the root of our disagreement is the position that these desires are inbuilt. I would argue instead that all our desires for things (be they physical items or psychological states) develop as we learn--through the pleasure-joy/pain-suffering mechanism--to regard them as needs (as things which promote our welfare and happiness). There was an earlier post in this thread (by RDU Neil) which, IMO, very clearly traced an evolution of needs and desires from human infancy to maturity and projected very convincingly a similar evolution of needs and desires from humanity into metahumanity.

 

Korvar, you have brought me around on my use of the word "whim". However one comes down on the issue of whether or not core psychological needs remain constant, one's desires for such things would never be whims. (Even "habit" carries more of a connotation for thoughtlessness than I think is accurate.)

 

Finally, the example of Mr. Invulnerable is taking on a life I never intended. When I introduced the idea of a completely invulnerable being, I didn't mean someone merely more powerful than other human beings (like someone very wealthy), I meant someone incapable of being harmed or even hindered by any force in the universe! I introduced him as a philosophic idea (the limiting case of a powerful being), not as a potential PC or NPC in a supers campaign. Personally, I think he would make a really terrible PC/NPC (who could stop him, after all), though he might provide a useful device for motivating plots.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

There are enough interesting byproducts of invulnerability to be getting on with' date=' though. For example, given all his Physiological and Safety needs are taken care of... there's almost no need for him to have a job. And in a society that does tend to see people by what they do, that could be interesting. His choices of any jobs he does take would be driven more by social, self-esteem and self-actualisation, than "I need to pay the rent!".[/quote']

I've got such a character that meets his social needs by becoming a superhero. He used his college fund to create a charity that pays for property damage caused by superhumans, makes many television appearances and enjoys telling stories to children at orphanages and at the bookstore in the mall.

 

Granted, some would say he's a bit off, but he's still human. Just a human born with powers that allow him to meet his human needs in different ways.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was actually going to make some kind of link between they hypothetical Mr. Invulnerable and The Filthy Rich. In many ways, The Filthy Rich have their basic Physiological and Safety needs dealt with (okay, they still actually need to eat and sleep and so forth - but they never have any serious obstacles to overcome in doing that).

 

I've also thought about how analogous Being Filthy Rich can be to Having Superpowers. You can do things no mortal can, and before long your life bears little relation to that of Normal People. Some use their money/power to do good; others use their money/power to increase their power. And others use their money/power just to live pleasantly.

 

And there are some rich people who think that being rich so removes them from normal society that they don't feel bound by society's rules, kind of like some feel superhumans would feel.

Very well put.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Finally' date=' the example of Mr. Invulnerable is taking on a life I never intended. When I introduced the idea of a completely invulnerable being, I didn't mean someone merely more powerful than other human beings (like someone very wealthy), I meant someone incapable of being harmed or even hindered by any force in the universe! I introduced him as a philosophic idea (the limiting case of a powerful being), not as a potential PC or NPC in a supers campaign. Personally, I think he would make a really terrible PC/NPC (who could stop him, after all), though he might provide a useful device for motivating plots.[/quote']

Who's universe? Yours? Mine? His own? The universe of the filthy rich? Perhaps the universe of the irrecoverably destitute?

 

Once start using absolutes, you lose this kind of arguement. A being so powerful that nothing in the universe can bring him harm (we'll just assume it's physical harm), would also be affect by all those things come along with it, absolutely. Such a character would be completely corrupted by power as to be more evil than anything in the universe. His needs would be so infinately different than any other being, it would be as it he didn't have needs at all. His mind would have become so far disfigured from human (or would be such a way naturally due to growing up this way) that he must either be classified as a force of nature, or insane.

 

Then there's the fact that it's impossible. Technically, superpowes are possible. Powered Armor is possible. Increadibly powerful Psionics are possible. Genetic tampering is possible. Making a being that becomes, or is naturally, increadably endurant and doesn't need to eat or sleep is possible. None of these are very likely, but possible. In a game, they become not only possible or likely, but even a given fact. An absolutely unvulnerable being is a definate impossibility in reality, and a functional improbability in a game or story.

 

Any way you look at it, such an example can't really apply. At least not as a core example.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Is this thread still about Superhero's CvK, or is it irrevocably derailed?

 

Mags

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Is this thread still about Superhero's CvK, or is it irrevocably derailed?

 

I'd go with derailed. Its devolved into an argument over whether Friedrich Nietzsche was on the right track or not.

[Magmarock]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'd go with derailed. Its devolved into an argument over whether Friedrich Nietzsche was on the right track or not.

 

 

Bummer.

 

 

Mags

[Kraken]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

His needs would be so infinately different than any other being' date=' it would be as it he didn't have needs at all.[/quote']

You basically just restated a point I made originally: that such a being, like robots, has no needs. It was the same point in which I introduced the completely invulnerable being example; indeed, the only purpose of this (obviously absurd, as you say) example was to illustrate the relationship between invulnerable beings and robots. It was also the point which you singled out immediately (in the very next post) for criticism. I believe your exact words were: "I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion."

 

While I have been surprised by some of the hostility shown me, I have donned my thickest skin, have taken no offense, and have ever tried to confine my statements to the ideas involved (even if my style of presentation may have inadvertently pushed some others' buttons). (I would especially like to thank Korvar for dealing with me so agreeably, even while strongly disagreeing with me.) However, since the responses I have elicited are now threatening to derail a thread which has otherwise been full of some really interesting and useful ideas, I will withdraw myself back to lurker-land.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

You basically just restated a point I made originally: that such a being, like robots, has no needs. It was the same point in which I introduced the completely invulnerable being example; indeed, the only purpose of this (obviously absurd, as you say) example was to illustrate the relationship between invulnerable beings and robots. It was also the point which you singled out immediately (in the very next post) for criticism. I believe your exact words were: "I don't see how anyone could come to this conclusion."

 

While I have been surprised by some of the hostility shown me, I have donned my thickest skin, have taken no offense, and have ever tried to confine my statements to the ideas involved (even if my style of presentation may have inadvertently pushed some others' buttons). (I would especially like to thank Korvar for dealing with me so agreeably, even while strongly disagreeing with me.) However, since the responses I have elicited are now threatening to derail a thread which has otherwise been full of some really interesting and useful ideas, I will withdraw myself back to lurker-land.

My appologies if I have offended. I have no hostility toward you or anyone here. I just enjoy having a good discussion (heated though it may be ). None of my "buttons" have been pushed, and I hope that I have't pushed any of yours. While pushing buttons does sound kinda fun in and of itself, I'd rather talk about superhumans...

 

 

My point about the invulnerable man was that using an impossible situation as an example to prove a point does just the opposite. An impossible situation has to relavance to a discussion about how something might be in reality (or even the semi-realailitic world of superheroes).

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I was actually going to make some kind of link between they hypothetical Mr. Invulnerable and The Filthy Rich. In many ways, The Filthy Rich have their basic Physiological and Safety needs dealt with (okay, they still actually need to eat and sleep and so forth - but they never have any serious obstacles to overcome in doing that).

 

I've also thought about how analogous Being Filthy Rich can be to Having Superpowers. You can do things no mortal can, and before long your life bears little relation to that of Normal People. Some use their money/power to do good; others use their money/power to increase their power. And others use their money/power just to live pleasantly.

 

And there are some rich people who think that being rich so removes them from normal society that they don't feel bound by society's rules, kind of like some feel superhumans would feel.

 

This seems to argue my point, exactly. If normal humans, whose only superiority is being filthy rich, can become distant, aloof, unbound by society's rules... and their resources often allow them to be unbound by many rules (legal system, etc.) then how much more do you think a metahuman might, over time, become distanced, aloof, unattached to those things that humans attach to... your example is perfect, but not for what you've been arguing all this time, IMO.

 

In the end, I think Kraken is correct in that what we have very different views on what is a human need (as defined by Maslow and others). I feel they are learned/indoctrinated by how we grow and experience our place in the world. Needs aren't innate (beyond the need to fill an empty stomach, fight or flight and probably mating.) The rest is deeply ingrained, but LEARNED, behavior. If we disagree on this point (which I think we do) then we aren't going to convince each other at all.

 

And if you are hung up on the word -human as attached to meta or super... that's fine. I'd say that metahuman is one level... and that sufficiently powerful beings just become metas... or supers... or paras... and the world human is probably not applicable.

 

Finally, even if, in the end, many human needs are still part of a superhuman's make-up (real or simply habit) it doesn't take more than a slight shift in a couple areas to make their behavior and ideas seem very radical, maybe immoral, to normal humans. A simply "really tough guy" (not invulnerable) will likely be more reckless, more physical, more dangerous (whether intentional or not) over time... simply because there is less pain/suffering response to reinforce careful behavior. Suddenly, his little outbursts (all humans have them) become very serious. I get upset and punch the dashboard to feel pain in my hand and ground me. He has to go drive a car through a wall at 100mph to get the same sting! The same action, at a different scale... but what he does is considered wrong... while mine isn't even noticed. Power changes scale... and if nothing else, scale changes everything... but again, you might not agree with that basic concept... and if so, we have no place to go in this discussion.

[Korvar]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

This seems to argue my point' date=' exactly. If normal humans, whose only superiority is being filthy rich, can become distant, aloof, unbound by society's rules... and their resources often allow them to be unbound by many rules (legal system, etc.) then how much more do you think a metahuman might, over time, become distanced, aloof, unattached to those things that humans attach to... your example is perfect, but not for what you've been arguing all this time, IMO.[/quote']

 

Some do. Many more do not. It's certainly not as inevitable as both yourself and Kraken seem to be saying.

 

Examples have already been given of spouses of the very rich volunteering for charitable organisations. Some very rich folk do quite a lot for those less fortunate. I don't think being aloof and unattached is remotely an inevitable consequence of having one's basic needs taken care of.

[Nuadha]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It's time for Nuadha to join this geekily pointless discussion!

 

OK, so I read the first 24 pages and gave up. This thread is just too long to read all in one sitting!

 

Still, I was thinking it was time to add my 2 cents.

 

First of all, to answer the original question:

 

I've played all 5 types and had fun with all of them. I would guess that most of my characters have been type 2 or type 4. If I play a character that avoids killing, they tend to avoid it in all but extreme situations. Characters that do kill, look at it as a war....or in one case, a matter of honor. (The character was a Samurai that believed that it dishonored his opponents if he left them alive.)

 

As far as the genre goes, I think the genre is a lot more open then some genre purists would make it. I am a big fan of silver age "campy" comics and a particular hero with a code against killing. (hint- He wears primary colors and has a flying dog for a pet.) However, I've also really enjoyed some "mature" and "realistic" superhero stories and think that there are times when it could be necessary and even moral to kill one's opponent. For some characters, I never want to see them be forced to make that choice. I have long been bothered that Byrne wrote a story where Superman had no other choice. However, in that scenario, I think he did the right thing. I also enjoy some comics that put our heroes in more realistic scenarios where right and wrong is not always clear cut and the "right" option may be to kill someone.

 

I think fans that keep such a narrow vision of what the superhero genre can and should be stifle the possibilities AND give superhero fans a bad name. I think comics like "Plastic Man" or "Formerly Known as Justice League" or the Marvel Ages line should be on the shelf alongside comics like "Identity Crisis," "X-Statix," "The Punisher" or "The Ultimates." The genre should explore all sorts of questions of morality and still have other titles that are just fun and capers.

 

Do fans of Dashiell Hammet or Raymond Chandler argue that "The Cat Who...." aren't mysteries? Should Science Fiction only include "hard sci-fi" books and not include George Lucas space operas? Do all bad guys in Westerns need to wear black while the good guys wear white? Like these genres, superheroes can be a lot of things and some people may prefer certain styles but that is no reason to tell people what can or can not be part of the genre. (On a side note, I used to work in a Waldenbooks and once had a customer tell me that we shouldn't put Star Wars in the science fiction section because it wasn't "true sci-fi." As far as he was concerned only 10% of the books in the sci-fi section belonged there, the ones that were completely rooted in science.)

 

[EDIT- Fixed the glaring typo.]

[Doug McCrae]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Some people refrain from hurting others because it's immoral. Others because they fear punishment. The behaviour of the former won't change when he gets superpowers. The behaviour of the latter will. But it's not that his moral compass has changed. The second type of person was never moral to begin with!

[Rene]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Like these genres' date=' superheroes can be a lot of things and some people may prefer certain styles but that is no reasin to tell people what can or can not be part of the genre.[/quote']

 

Nicely said.

 

Most people are very self-centered and don't realize that "the best way for me" isn't necessarily the best way for everybody else. Superhero fans are no different. And fans of all kinds usually are possessive, narrow-minded, and arrogant regarding "their turf".

 

I guess that what makes the superhero genre such a hot item in such discussions is that all the different approaches are usually taken with the same character or series. There will always be some group out there feeling disinfranchised. Hell, some fans are so sensitive that they object in rude, strong manner to "parallel universe" series like the Ultimates, just because they "offend" their view of how those characters should be. It's not even official Marvel Universe, it's a different universe altogether, but they're still pissed.

 

When I don't like something I just don't read it.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Superheroes don't kill.

 

It occurs to me that there's one pretty glaring exception to this--the Spectre.

He's been around since comics began, and has been dispatching murderers left and right for most of that time period. Technically, that makes him a vigilante--except that his "authority" to act as JJE comes from, uh, well, God(or at least the DCU's version of the Almighty).

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile that...

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It occurs to me that there's one pretty glaring exception to this--the Spectre.

He's been around since comics began, and has been dispatching murderers left and right for most of that time period. Technically, that makes him a vigilante--except that his "authority" to act as JJE comes from, uh, well, God(or at least the DCU's version of the Almighty).

 

I'm not sure how to reconcile that...

 

He's not a superhero. He's the wrath of God incarnate. He's above superheroics.

[Rene]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Some people refrain from hurting others because it's immoral. Others because they fear punishment. The behaviour of the former won't change when he gets superpowers. The behaviour of the latter will. But it's not that his moral compass has changed. The second type of person was never moral to begin with!

 

I had a heated discussion with Nexus over this very topic in another thread, and I don't want to reopen that particular can of worms (especially because I'm surprised to see that most of Nexus's posts in this thread are mostly stuff I'd like to say myself), but you managed to sumarize my own oppinions nicely.

 

I see superpowers as the ultimate test for your morals. Now you have powers, you'll show your true colors. Don't blame the powers for "corrupting" you. Though I agree that, over time, the possession of powers will probably change you, I think this process will be too complex and individual for us to package everything in a nice catchphrase like "superpower corrupts".

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Some people refrain from hurting others because it's immoral. Others because they fear punishment. The behaviour of the former won't change when he gets superpowers. The behaviour of the latter will. But it's not that his moral compass has changed. The second type of person was never moral to begin with!

 

Actually, the only logically, rationally moral reason to not hurt someone else, is because it creates an environment that is more threatening to the self. EVERYONE refrains from harming others because essentially it is harming themselves. We have no motivation that isn't ultimately selfish...

 

... there is no absolute "platonic" moral platform. That first sentence above can be, and likely would be modified by every person on this board to say "Some people refrain from hurting others because it's immoral..." adding "... except when it isn't immoral, as in protecting yourself, others, property, state sanctioned execution... etc." Punching someone in the nose to stop them from harming you is hardly immoral, as it serves a very specific, logical, rational need for humans. My short term survival is more important than the long term ramifications of this punch. Thus it s moral.

 

To be the one initiating violence... to force your ideas or will on them, to take their property or coerce them... that actually violates rational, logical human action, because instigating such behavior sets a standard that says, "Its ok to do the same thing to me." It is inherrently self-destructive, and would be for all humans... thus it is logically unethical/immoral.

 

Those who practice altruism (as all humans do to some extent) do not do this out of some absolute... they do it out of basic human need to take care of others so that I will be taken care of, myself. It may not be conscious... and sometimes it may be the wrong choice (humans always make decisions on limited perceptions and lack of information) and cause more harm than good, but overall, as a human practice, it creates a more stable, productive environment... it supports human existence in the aggregate... so that is a moral act.

 

Morality just isn't an absolute yes/no or always/never type thing. It is flexible, and hazy and variable and relative... because people are flexible, hazy, variable and relative.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

He's not a superhero. He's the wrath of God incarnate. He's above superheroics.

Well, all arguably true. OTOH, he wears a costume, has a nom de guerre, a strict moral code, used to have something approximating a Secret ID/alter ego, and was a longtime member in good standing with the JSA(and, occasionally, the JLA).

 

It'd be pretty easy to confuse him for a superhero.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Most people are very self-centered and don't realize that "the best way for me" isn't necessarily the best way for everybody else. Superhero fans are no different.

 

I thought you were going to say, "Superheroes are no differrent."

 

Not that I would disagree all that strongly if you had, but mainly it just struck me as funny.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It'd be pretty easy to confuse him for a superhero.

 

Ya think?