Code VS Killing Poll

[Stray Cat]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

So you think the GM should always ensure that a superhero is never really faced with a decision between the lives of two (or more) different people.

 

I do not agree, but I will go so far as to say that I think it would be better not to do that than it would be to do it poorly.

 

A long time ago, I had a character who had a special form of Danger Sense that prevented him from teleporting into solid objects (doing so had pretty horrific consequences in those days). He was in a situation where he was physically unable to injure the villain (his nemesis), and the villain was putting him in the same "choose which person dies" scenario. Except, in this case, it was a real choice: at any moment, the villain was going to press a button, and one person or the other was going to die.

 

"You think you are offering me a choice between [NPC 1] and [NPC 2]," Darknight said. "I have another choice: one which you would never even consider. This is why you will always lose."

 

Darknight made his choice: he deliberately teleported into the villain, obliterating them both.

 

(The GM pulled a Deus Ex Machina and allowed Darknight to survive, which I thought cheapened the sacrifice somewhat. But I didn't complain.)

 

Respectfully, you're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that there was a choice. You don't agree. I'm not saying that Darknight was not superheroic because he killed the villain. His sacrifice was most certainly superheroic. Killing is not something superheroes don't do. It's something they shouldn't do. There are extreme situations like Darknight's case. The GM should reward ingenuity.

 

If we played the villains like the ruthless bastards who exist in reality, only with superpowers, the superheroes would certainly have no choice. The villains would strike without warning, there would be no chance to stop their plots before they acted, and they would likely succeed. I'm not into roleplaying that sort of masochism.

 

Comic book superheroes have a trump card. The writer has a plan for how things are giong to come out. So if you're saying that Spiderman didn't have a choice, then that's the only way I can agree with you. No character had a choice in the movie because the plot was already set.

 

RPG superheroes have to rely on their players to make choices for them. The choices made are real. Every time a PC saves the bystanders instead of capturing the villain, every time a PC comes up with a way to thwart the villain's plans thus saving the innocent and capturing the villain, a choice was made. To kill is not the only choice.

 

I think this is just going to come down to playing style.

 

Cat

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Cat wrote...

If we played the villains like the ruthless bastards who exist in reality, only with superpowers, the superheroes would certainly have no choice. The villains would strike without warning, there would be no chance to stop their plots before they acted, and they would likely succeed.

 

 

Now I wanted to stay out of this thread, because it's kind of like discussing abortion rights, except it's totally geekily pointless... but I wanted to thank Stray Cat for summing up exactly what I really DO want to play out in my games.

 

He goes on to write...

I'm not into roleplaying that sort of masochism.

 

... which shows we are on opposite sides on this one, because this is exactly the kind of stuff that interests me. What if the villains were not grandstanding buffoons, but intelligent, crafty types who used their abilities the same way that most role players use character powers... min-maxed, ultimately efficient, planned but flexible, no mercy... in other words, extremely effectively?

 

On the surface, this could make for a nasty "sniper war" kind of game, where metahumans hunt each other down, attacking from ambush... all paranoia and savagery...

 

... or you can think a little deeper. Remember, these villains are smart... not just short sighted and megalomaniacal. They might see that such actions would actually harm them in the end... they might find clever, subtle ways to use their power... working to create a new system rather than just smash the current one... act behind the scenes... act indirectly, manipulate others... cooperate when it suits threir needs, etc. Suddenly we have elements of real drama, plot, and story.

 

It does require a "real politik" kind of view of the world on the players part... and it asks the GM to answer questions like "with such powerful individuals, how does society actually function?" It forces the game away from the standard, reactionary "what is the villain doing I have to stop this week" to the more proactive "What am I going to do with my power this week?" type of game. (As Cat points out, simple reactionary superheroes would be highly ineffective if that was all that they did.)

 

It makes the game world rich and deep, as you begin to explore things like metahuman coalitions that act as "balances of power" to keep any other from getting out of hand. It makes you think about laws and law enforcement changes that would have to exist to maintain some form of stability... an actual effective paranormal police force... actual incarceration that works... effective capital punishment for killer metas... etc.

 

All of this makes, IMO, a much more detailed, complex and deep gaming experience... especially because it throws out the rather prejudiced concepts of "hero" and "villain" and looks at it more realistically... these are "people with power" and there is no inherent good or evil... just a question of "how will you use that power" and "what are the repercussions of that power use?"

 

Therefore, questions of lethality, abuse of power, distance from humanity, the social role of metahumans vs. norms... the fact that a simple, human disagreement can escalate to WWIII... that stuff becomes high drama. The game becomes one of social-science-metahuman-fiction... and can have straight laced, white hat "heroes" and psychotic superhuman socio-paths... but more likely will have people much more in the middle trying to figure out just how much they can drive their own agenda (every person has some kind of agenda) without crossing the line... and if they do, is crossing the line worth it? Does the success come worth the price?

 

That can make for powerful stories and intense role playing... something I always wanted comics to be, but they never were. The question of "to kill or not" becomes so much more rich and varied. All you need is a simple axiom that comes from any examination of real life... "The more lethal you act... the more lethal the world will respond..." and then you just play out what happens. It's a world teetering on a razor's edge, that could slip into chaos at any moment... our world amplified by the superhuman.

 

Been playing that way for over 20 years... and it is hardly masochism... it's fascinating. At least IMO.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

So I try to avoid the 'instant escape mode' that some GMs fall into. The way I see it' date=' how can I expect the heroes to face the consequences of their actions if they never see the villains having to face the consequences? Besides, there are plenty of [i']other[/i] villains to keep the PCs busy (but not enough villains that the PCs can take them all out permanently- this isn't D&D or a video game).

 

One of the reasons I ask the GGU GMs to run their storylines past me before implementing them is so I can remind them of things like "All but two of the Prime Movers are sitting in cells in the Icehouse for a year and a half".

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Without the threat of death, or the possibility of a hero to question his actions, or have his actions questioned by others, the story becomes a fable with capes and eye-beams.

 

Now please, before you have a cow, there's nothing wrong with this. If you like it that's fine, but I'll play in a different sandbox. I find this type of storytelling extremely limiting and not very entertaining.

 

Of course I want good to win, but I want good to work at it, make some sacrifices and question itself once in a while. That defines what a hero is to me, super or not.

 

 

Why do you assume my way means a) there is no threat of death; the hero never questions his actions or has his actions questioned by others; or c) good doesn't have to work at it and make some sacrifices and question itself once in a while?

 

Just because I don't think the heroes should kill means I think the villains shouldn't. My villains can and are some pretty nasty characters. Ask Kara sometime about what happened to her character Vindicator, once, after she was captured by one of my master villains.

 

I see your points as separate issues, not covered in the "superheroes do not kill" issue.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Do you think it might be worthwhile for you to reexamine your statement? Perhaps if you phrased it differently' date=' you may not need to grasp at quite so many straws to defend it.[/quote']

 

 

I haven't had to grasp a single straw, sir. Its not my fault that the examples given were poor ones.

 

My statement stands.

 

 

 

Oh, and for the record, your constant condescension to anyone you respond to is getting very, very old. It was old back when you were trying to set yourself up as a PBEM expert by plagiarising my written work, and its old now. You should consider toning down your attitude if you want people to take you for anything other than an arrogant ass.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

As to your first point, is it more heroic of Batman to hold his principles as more important than the lives of those the Joker WILL kill. Its not like Joker will stop killing and Batman KNOWS no prison can hold him for long. So maybe he should do the right thing and kill the Joker, then he can quit fighting crime, turn himself in, or do whatever other things necessary to live with what he's done, instead of letting innocents die because he doesn't have the courage to do the only thing that will stop the Joker from killing again.

 

Perhaps the penal system should do the right thing, convict the Joker, and execute him.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually' date=' the sad fact of the matter is that often it seems that denigrating other's opinions is [b']exactly[/b] what Jack is here for. He seems to be under the impression that his opinion is more important or more valid than anyone else's, which is not the case. He doesn't even attempt to phrase his responses such that, in his opinion, "superheroes don't kill"- he tries to portray it as objective fact, which it is not. And that is why he is childish and limited- because he refuses to admit that other ways of thinking might also be valid, not because he thinks superheroes don't kill.

 

 

Oh, here's logic for you. Jack thinks X is wrong for Y reasons. Because he thinks X is wrong, and has yet to hear any argument he feels changes the "X is wrong" thesis and says so (that he has yet to hear anything that changes his mind), he is not only called "childish and limited", it is implied that the only reason Jack is here is to be a troll.

 

Just who is being childish here, sir?

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

What's been most irritating about the CvK discussion so far is not that there are two opinions, but that (some) representatives of one viewpoint refuse to accept that the other viewpoint has any validity whatsoever. This cannot be said of those who think that superheroes can kill, that it just depends on the characters and the game they're being played in.

 

I want to address a question to those who have been outspoken in favour of classic 4-colour do-gooding morality: do you think that US servicemen engaged in combat in Iraq are heroes? If so, is their heroism diminished in your eyes because they killed people? Or are they even more heroic for precisely that reason? I raise this point not to open up a discussion about Iraq, but rather to use a real example to put this difference into some kind of context.

 

Iraq is reality. We are talking about a game. If you are prepared to accept the heroism of killers in reality, then why on earth would you have such a hard time with it in a game? This is not a matter of telling you to change your own games. Rather it's just to ask you to stop being so bloody-minded about other people's.

 

Furthermore, as has already been said, costumed heroes were originally killers, Batman included. They were little more than ruthless vigilantes to begin with weren't they? Then they changed- first to become defenders of truth and justice during WW2 (I'm no expert on this, so pardon any foreshortening of developments), then to become the 4-colour do-gooders we know today thereafter. But the superhero genre can no more stand still than any other cultural form. And the change towards the more morally ambiguous kind of hero is not new- it dates back to Moore's Watchmen, making it nearly 20 years old, and it has become ubiquitous since then. It's a bit rich therefore people to define 'superhero' as if only classic 4-colour characters existed as templates for our games.

 

Stop it.

 

You don't have to like post-4-colour comics; you can even ignore them if you choose; but you can no more pretend that they don't exist and haven't changed the genre than the classical cultural elite of the early 20th could ignore the impact of modernism.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually' date=' however terse he may be, I think WM's point is still valid. The examples given aren't counter to his essential argument about the role of killing - it's extremely limited and heroes simply don't do it - not without great remorse or as part of a greater story arc.[/quote']

 

Thank you.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Arg' date=' CvK or no CvK, personal pet peeve of mine is the "treating as murder what is *clearly* self defense/defense of another" schtick.[/quote']

 

That's another factor entirely, I agree. When I say "superheroes do not kill" I am stating that true superheroes fight villains not with an aim to killing their opponents but to disabling and restraining them so that the proper law enforcement authorities can arrest, try, (hopefully) convict, and then properly punish the offender.

 

Superheroes should not stray from this course, in my opinion.

 

Killing in wartime happens. Its wartime. Captain America machine-gunning a group of Nazi's during a military offensive doesn't count.

 

Superman killing the three Kryptonian villains, in my mind, does not count because a) there was no "proper law enforcement authority" remaining to punish the villains for their crimes; Superman truly saw no other way of keeping the villains from escaping to his Earth from the alternate dimension and ravaging his Earth as they had the alternate (and in truth there was no way, at that time); and c) it was a monumental decision that took a toll on the man, not a casual action done because he lacked repect for human life.

 

Superman killing Doomsday was a side-effect of their fight, rather than an intentional action on Superman's part, and thus does not count.

 

 

Let me give you a counter-example: Collossus murdering Riptide was just that: murder. He was an experienced superhero, and I can come up with a plethora of actions he could have taken that would have taken the villain out of the fight without killing him. Sure, the villain was hurting him and his friends, but it was obvious that Riptide could not have stood up to a direct attack from Collossus. Can't get close enough without getting hurt? Fine... hurl something at him. (Except Collossus *did* get close enough, didn't he?) Find a way to disrupt his actions long enough to get close, then knock him out... don't tell me Collossus couldn't have knocked Riptide out... the man could lift 80 tons for Christ's sake.

 

 

I still say Vance Astrovik's attorneys could have got him acquitted if they had tried hard enough. Its called "The Burning Bed" defense, and it applies to men as well as to women.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I want to address a question to those who have been outspoken in favour of classic 4-colour do-gooding morality: do you think that US servicemen engaged in combat in Iraq are heroes? If so' date=' is their heroism diminished in your eyes because they killed people? Or are they even more heroic for precisely that reason? I raise this point not to open up a discussion about Iraq, but rather to use a real example to put this difference into some kind of context.[/quote']

 

 

A serviceman engaged in combat in Iraq is not automatically a hero. A heroic serviceman engaged in combat in Iraq is a hero. Just wearing the uniform, being in a combat zone, or even firing your weapon at the enemy is not enough to be considered a hero, because part of the job description is "wear the uniform and occasionally enter a combat zone to fire at the enemy".

 

And before anyone... and I mean ANYONE... jumps on my back about not being patriotic or not supporting the troops or whatever, please remember that at one time I was one of the guys who wore the uniform, entered a combat zone, and fired his weapon at the enemy.

 

To get back to topic, once again, you're bringing warfare into the argument. Warfare is an entirely different thing from comic book superheroics.

 

 

 

Stop it.

 

Oh, well, you've convinced me! You tell me to stop stating my opinion, without a scintilla of argument convincing me why my statement is wrong, and I'll just go ahead and shut up immediately.

 

 

 

 

 

You don't have to like post-4-colour comics; you can even ignore them if you choose; but you can no more pretend that they don't exist and haven't changed the genre than the classical cultural elite of the early 20th could ignore the impact of modernism.

 

I don't pretend they don't exist. I'm merely saying that whatever the characters in those books are, they aren't superheroes.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That's another factor entirely, I agree. When I say "superheroes do not kill" I am stating that true superheroes fight villains not with an aim to killing their opponents but to disabling and restraining them so that the proper law enforcement authorities can arrest, try, (hopefully) convict, and then properly punish the offender.

 

Superheroes should not stray from this course, in my opinion.

Thank you.

 

You've used the words "should not" and "in my opinion." That's a far cry from "superheroes don't kill" especially when you, yourself have stated several cases where superheroes do, in fact, kill.

 

Apparently we agree afterall.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

...please remember that at one time I was one of the guys who wore the uniform' date=' entered a combat zone, and fired his weapon at the enemy.[/quote']

I'm just trying to make an obvservation with this...

 

This information seems to explain a lot about your attitude and point of view Worldmaker. Military indoctronation will do that to people.

 

But you've actually done it. You've killed. Or at the least, you've attacked with the intention of killing the target. Out of curiosity, does that make you are higher authority on the subject of killing, or does that fact that I haven't killed make me a higher authority on superheroes?

 

I know that's like comparing apples to oranged. What you did was in real life, and superheroes just aren't real. I'm just wondering if your own experiences with the subject has contributed to your opinions as they apply here in this discussion.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

But you've actually done it. You've killed. Or at the least' date=' you've attacked with the intention of killing the target. Out of curiosity, does that make you are higher authority on the subject of killing, or does that fact that I haven't killed make me a higher authority on superheroes?[/quote']

 

Neither. It does not make me an expert, just as the lack of such experience precludes you from being one. I was merely saying that my experience does give me some perspective on the hero-status, or not, of the common soldier.

 

Not authority. Perspective.

 

 

 

 

I know that's like comparing apples to oranged. What you did was in real life, and superheroes just aren't real. I'm just wondering if your own experiences with the subject has contributed to your opinions as they apply here in this discussion.

 

It may have. I know its affected other attitudes I and opinions I have.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

A serviceman engaged in combat in Iraq is not automatically a hero.

Not germane- I never said as much.

 

A heroic serviceman engaged in combat in Iraq is a hero. Just wearing the uniform, being in a combat zone, or even firing your weapon at the enemy is not enough to be considered a hero, because part of the job description is "wear the uniform and occasionally enter a combat zone to fire at the enemy".

Which seems to be a roundabout way of agreeing with my point: that ordinary people can kill and be heroic.

 

And before anyone... and I mean ANYONE... jumps on my back about not being patriotic or not supporting the troops or whatever, please remember that at one time I was one of the guys who wore the uniform, entered a combat zone, and fired his weapon at the enemy.

 

To get back to topic, once again, you're bringing warfare into the argument. Warfare is an entirely different thing from comic book superheroics.

Your or anyone else's patriotism or record is not the issue here. Nor, as I said, is the war as such. I wanted to establish a point that you don't absolutely equate heroism with not killing in the real world, all the better to highlight the lacunae of your arguments absolutely equating heroism with not killing in the fictional world of comics. To amplify my point: this is an... unusual perspective.

 

And it is not enough simply to state that warfare "is an entirely different thing from comic book superheroics". First: this is a tautology, since the conclusion (about warfare) is contained within your premise (about 4-colour comics). Second: this statement is demonstrably false, to wit, Captain America in WW2 to name a classic example; and The Authority, to name a popular contemporary one. The former is an example of when nascent costumed heroes of the modern kind were supersoldiers recruited as part of the 'hearts and minds' campaign of a real war effort, let alone the war appearing in the stories themselves. And that's only one example from WW2 as you well know Worldmaker, not to mention comics in the Cold War too. And The Authority, however much you may dislike it, is a comic about war too in its own way.

 

Oh, well, you've convinced me!

Your puny sarcasm will avail you nought, though worlds may tremble at your rhetoric.

 

 

 

You tell me to stop stating my opinion, without a scintilla of argument convincing me why my statement is wrong, and I'll just go ahead and shut up immediately.

Again, not germane because it is not what I said. For your benefit, here is what I said:

"It's a bit rich therefore people

to define 'superhero' as if only classic 4-colour characters existed

as templates for our games.

 

 

Stop it."

(Emphasis added.)

 

I've left out the slightly more than mere scintilla of argument about the history of the costumed hero that was my first demonstration that your preference for 4-colour superheroics has neither historical nor contemporary validity as an objective definition of the genre. I was pointing out that your definition of the superhero absolutely in 4-colour terms is about as valid some 20 years after Watchmen as would be defining the novel by the standards of Cervantes some 20 years after the publication of James Joyce's Ulysses. Or perhaps about as meaningful as defining costumed heroes by the standards of the Shadow and the early Batman after the arrival of the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, and so on...?

 

 

I don't pretend they don't exist. I'm merely saying that whatever the characters in those books are, they aren't superheroes.

Yes we know that's your opinion Worldmaker, but on your current showing- tautological, demonstrably false, and fatuous- do you have an argument that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Back to the topic ... #1. All the way. ALL my Champions characters have the 20 pointer. It's the first thing that goes in my Disads column. And I always make sure I have nonlethal powers like NNDs and Entangles to back it up. If I ever get to play Fantasy Hero, I'm gonna have one of those on that character, too.

 

For my players, I let them go between #1 and #3; most settle on #2. I run a pretty 'happy' game, for lack of a better term, and the situation where 'someone has to die' never comes up, if for no other reason than there is *always* a plan that a clever player/hero can come up with that doesn't require killing anybody. If a villain dies, it's usually by his own hand (the base self-destruct thing that the heroes narrowly escape, etc).

[Vanguard00]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Do you prefer to play Superheroes that:

 

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

 

I don’t think I’ve ever played a superhero that will not kill, period, so I’d have to say no to this one.

 

 

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

 

This is not my preference because it doesn’t go along with my own ideology, but I’ve played such characters on rare occasions.

 

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

 

Yep, this is where I generally fall. The vast majority of my characters believe that if you can avoid killing, do so, but at some point it might be necessary. That point may vary from character to character, but this is generally where all my PCs fall.

 

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

 

 

In some Dark Champions campaigns, yes, I’ve played such characters. And I have to admit that this is where most of my DC characters probably fall.

 

5. Justice sometimes demands death (Vigilante Mentality)

 

Not a preference, but I’ve played it. Not that he lasted long…

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Now I wanted to stay out of this thread' date=' because it's kind of like discussing abortion rights, except it's totally geekily pointless... [/quote']

 

That's a great phrase.

 

I agree. Not that it keeps me from contributing to the geeky pointlessness...

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

That's a great phrase.

 

I agree. Not that it keeps me from contributing to the geeky pointlessness...

I thought geeky pointlessness was one of the raisons d'etre of the HERO forums as much as any others?

 

PS. Do you need to exhibit pointed geekyness to contribute to geeky pointlessness? (I'm outta here...)

[assault]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It does require a "real politik" kind of view of the world on the players part... and it asks the GM to answer questions like "with such powerful individuals' date=' how does society actually function?" It forces the game away from the standard, reactionary "what is the villain doing I have to stop this week" to the more proactive "What am I going to do with my power this week?" type of game. (As Cat points out, simple reactionary superheroes would be highly ineffective if that was all that they did.)[/quote']

 

I'm sure all this makes for a fun game, but it has nothing to do with costumed crimefighters.

 

In this kind of world, my character would use his powers to get laid, not to fight crime or change the world. See Zenith for further details, including what happens when supervillains get in your face.

 

Amusing, but I still prefer cops and robbers with capes and masks.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Not to derail, but how do character's PCs with the CVK #1 feel about the bad guys they catch being tried, sentenced and executed?

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...I think that would be a very interesting storyline(Joker is found sane this time around, sentenced to death...150 issues later, he gets put to death).

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It was old back when you were trying to set yourself up as a PBEM expert by plagiarising my written work

 

Come, now: if you must slander me, at least be creative. Perhaps I illegally smuggle genetically engineered orchids into the country in my hollowed-out thigh bones, or maybe I have a collection of mutilated kittens tucked away in the toes of my shoes?

 

Superheroes should not stray from this course' date=' in my opinion.[/quote']

 

It's been clear for a while that this is what you meant. Perhaps next time you venture an opinion on the subject, this should be what you say.

 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

 

Not that I haven't enjoyed the thread: I have, including your contributions to it. It's caused me to think about things I haven't contemplated in a number of years. For that, I am grateful to all concerned.

 

You should consider toning down your attitude if you want people to take you for anything other than an arrogant ass.

 

Alas, we are who we are, and I've been who I am for a very long time. I can only hope that I make up in sincerity and helpfulness what I may lack in tact and diplomacy.

 

[edit: corrected spelling]

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Yes we know that's your opinion Worldmaker' date=' but on your current showing- tautological, demonstrably false, and fatuous- do you have an argument that can stand up to the slightest scrutiny? [/quote']

 

 

Has so far.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Come' date=' now: if you must slander me, at least be creative. Perhaps I illegally smuggle geneticaly engineered orchids into the country in my hollowed-out thigh bones, or maybe I have a collection of mutilated kittens tucked away in the toes of my shoes? [/quote']

 

Cute. Totally ignores the fact that I posted links showing you lifted my material, and thus demonstrating that you were indeed plagiarising me, but its cute nonetheless.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Not to derail' date=' but how do character's PCs with the CVK #1 feel about the bad guys they catch being tried, sentenced and executed?[/quote']

 

That's an excellent question. To the best of my recollection, I have really only played one supers character, ever, with a 100% absolute code against killing. They were never in the situation you describe, unfortunately, so I can't tell you how it might have worked out. It would have been very interesting to play, I think.