Code VS Killing Poll

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

The follow up was to Wanderer' date=' who occupies the seat next to Seenar on the Why Am I Bothering To Treat This Mook With Respect bus.[/quote']

 

Maybe because getting down to personal insults is a lose-lose situation, since a net board is a really lousy place to fight a duel to the death.

 

Anyway, I am bothering to treat everyone around here with respect, just because it's the best thing to do.

 

However, insults are not the best way in the world to move me (or anyone else) to deem the offender's ideas with any more respect than the intrinsec amount they may be worth (typically quite limited if someone stoops down to insults).

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'm sure all this makes for a fun game' date=' but it has nothing to do with costumed crimefighters.[/quote']True, but the one of the points being made on this thread is that for 20 years or so (and I forgot Marvelman, aka Miracleman in a previous post, which predated Watchmen by several years) there has been more to costumed superpowered heroes than mere crimefighting.

 

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.

How you would choose to play your character in a world like this isn't really an argument against the gaming potential of such a world surely. And, in fact, your putative characterisation might prove interesting in such a game. It might provide an interesting contrast to the other characters (who would presumabley largely be more focussed on the realpol), and could even generate some interesting intra-party tensions too. A character like the one you suggest might prove to be an asset in such a game in other words assault.

 

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

Fair dos, but your reference to "cops and robbers" hits the nail right on the head assault. That's exactly what classic 4-colour comics are about. But superhero comics have long sinced developed in other directions. I mean, even the glossy 4-colour game I want to GM at some point won't be classic caped cops and robbers, but it will be an upbeat 4-colour world, with all the appropriate elements, and not my other campaign, where the heroes are involved in what is basically a war against ultimate evil (which I suppose you could call a high-powered DC-style campaign with supernatural instead of street-level enemies). In the end, I would say that the superhero genre is now much broader than it was in the days of Spidey et al, and you play the style of game that takes your fancy.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Has so far.

Your argument has stood up when you haven't even answered a single point of mine? If you want I guess.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I'm surprised at that reaction, frankly.

 

I think it's unrealistic to assume in a "realistic" setting that if I (GM) turn loose deadly villains time after time - such that the PCs essentially are not affecting the world - that the PCs won't eventually react by saying "forget it, obviously this world is a cruel and hopeless place, the only way I can make a difference is killing these guys because nobody else will handle them."

 

While I certainly get the Batman storylines, as stated earlier, I think that has a LOT more to do with his personal demons.

 

My response is definitely an extreme, but it is the approach those like Batman will commonly use to support their views. Part of the Batman problem is that the character's been around a lot of years, and when we condense all his pulication history (even removing stopries retconned away) into the period Bats has been around, the Joker must break out what, weekly?

 

Let's say Batman kills the Joker for excactly the logical reasons propounded. Who's next? Two Face kills a klot of people, and Arkham's obviously a sieve. Mr. Szasz? The cannibal (name escapes me)? Blockbuster? (see recent Nightwing issues) Tarantula for killing Blockbuster? (again, see recent Nightwing issues) Some new-on-the -scene costumed killer?

 

What if we get one wrong? (oh, oops - things were not what they appeared with that new costumed "killer") Does Batman kill himself in remorse (or as the ultimate expression of justice for murderers), or does that get rationalized as "acceptable casualties"?

 

As a cliche, let's face it, turning homicidal maniacs loose every other issue is just...a despondent setting. You may as well be playing one of the more maligned (rightfully or wrongfully) White Wolf settings.

 

And, moreover to the point, I think that this setting is so non-4-color that we aren't talking about traditoinal superhero comics - Batman notwithstanding (and even for Batman it wasn't until the Bronze Age this pattern became recurrent and unsettling).

 

No question - there are at least attempts to keep the Joker locked up, and we do see him behind bars on a fairly regular basis. He's the ultimate extreme example of the "better to kill him and be done with it" character.

 

But in any event' date=' you're really going from one extreme to another. There's a massive difference between releasing a homicidal maniac and a klepto, and this particular slippery slope argument holds no weight I believe.[/quote']

 

There is a massive difference, I agree. The question is how far down tyhe slope one will travel. My jaywalker comment comes from early appearances of the Punisher, so this is not unprecedented in even "four colour" (albeit somewhat grim four colour) comics.

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It may not make sense to you' date=' but there are people to whom the law, in and of itself, is sufficient motivation for their behavior.[/quote']

 

I am always mindful that these kind of people are liable to be comfortable to obey unjust orders and laws, no matter the consequences to innocents, so I'm extremely suspicious of those who put laws before their conscience.

 

It follows that some subset of superheroes would be among that group. Much like the preference that superheoes not kill, it is one thing to express a preference, and another to put blinders on and pretend that exceptions to your preference do not exist.

 

Well, to return to the main point, I was not saying that superhumans that put laws before anything else do not exist. They do. They just are not likely to pursue the career of the independent vigilante superhero, but to seek some kind of direct government sanction, and work as a super-cop, super-soldier, or super-spy. If one gets superpowers, and engages the career of the independent superhero, it is most likely that they will do it out of a motivation (like sense of responsibility, or noblesse oblige) that makes likely personal morality is paramount in their minds to sheer law-abiding. Since, to my knowledge, most superheroes do not work for the government, it follows that most of them should be of the type that utlimately puts conscience first, laws second.

 

On the other hand, we should always remember that we are talking about a role-playing game. It is possible, if you are the GM, and if you are particularly heavy-handed, that you could restrict the game setting such that no one in the entire game world ever deviates from the particular ethos to which you yourself subscribe. Personally, I would not wish to play in such a game, or with such a person.

 

Well, anyone is free to play a boyscoutish four-color Superman-like superhero type in any of my games, there are only a very few character types that I cannot stand as played except as NPC to be vilified and slaughtered as they deserve (e.g. "burn the heretic" or "bomb the infidel" religious zealots). I only reserve the right to show some little sneer if they follow a CvK code to the "I do not kill even to save millions" real extreme because IMO that's moral cowardice of the worst kind. I only request equal ground to use and discuss and prefer non-four-color Authority-like vigilante superheroes without being told at any turn that they are not heroes, but scum, villains, criminals, sociopaths, and demons incarnate just because they don't kiss the status quo and the powers that be, and rip out the throats of those who really deserve it, or when it's really necessary.

 

A character with a Total CvK or Four-Color Code of the Hero, Total *might* have some difficulties in my games just because I'm not very good at creating four-color worlds and settings. In the worlds I create, at least some authorities and laws are corrupt and unjust, there are some realistic social issues that don't lend well to four-color heroism, and there are truly bad people that greviously harm innocents and the system does not deal well with. That's not to maliciously harass four-color heroes, it's that I deem a four-color world too implausible to heartfelt depict.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Ah, I now see the disconnect.

 

CVK (Very Common, Total) is not what you are talking about then. I thought that is what you were referring to. The book's description of this level is that the character will not kill under any circumstance and will actively try to stop others from doing so.

 

I doubt you are implying that Captain America had this particular CVK.

 

This particular CVK doesn't care if it's war or not. They will not kill.

 

I think he does now (in much Marvel continuity) but did not in WW II. People change. Supers change, both over time due to writers, and to reflect society. In Detective #27, Batman carried a gun.

 

In very recent continuity (ie breaking the terrorist's neck on live TV), I question whether we're seeing another change, back to a less total CvK. However, I'm inclined to write that one off as a glitch until more "evidence" is published.

 

Ultimates Cap has a CvK at a much lower level, if at all.

 

But it's important to recognize "total commitment" isn't "will never". In extremis, an ego roll at -5 will enable the limitation to be overcome. This is a roll I wouldn't expect anyone to try except in extreme cases, and I'd say this is where Cap got to some years ago when he was forced to gun down an Ultimatum agent. "It's him or numerous innocent people" provides a bonus, and a reason. And even so, this violation of a core personal principal (ie a psych lim at the "total" level" caused much soul-searching afterwards.

[JmOz]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I am always mindful that these kind of people are liable to be comfortable to obey unjust orders and laws, no matter the consequences to innocents, so I'm extremely suspicious of those who put laws before their conscience.

 

 

 

Well, to return to the main point, I was not saying that superhumans that put laws before anything else do not exist. They do. They just are not likely to pursue the career of the independent vigilante superhero, but to seek some kind of direct government sanction, and work as a super-cop, super-soldier, or super-spy. If one gets superpowers, and engages the career of the independent superhero, it is most likely that they will do it out of a motivation (like sense of responsibility, or noblesse oblige) that makes likely personal morality is paramount in their minds to sheer law-abiding. Since, to my knowledge, most superheroes do not work for the government, it follows that most of them should be of the type that utlimately puts conscience first, laws second.

 

 

 

Well, anyone is free to play a boyscoutish four-color Superman-like superhero type in any of my games, there are only a very few character types that I cannot stand as played except as NPC to be vilified and slaughtered as they deserve (e.g. "burn the heretic" or "bomb the infidel" religious zealots). I only reserve the right to show some little sneer if they follow a CvK code to the "I do not kill even to save millions" real extreme because IMO that's moral cowardice of the worst kind. I only request equal ground to use and discuss and prefer non-four-color Authority-like vigilante superheroes without being told at any turn that they are not heroes, but scum, villains, criminals, sociopaths, and demons incarnate just because they don't kiss the status quo and the powers that be, and rip out the throats of those who really deserve it, or when it's really necessary.

 

A character with a Total CvK or Four-Color Code of the Hero, Total *might* have some difficulties in my games just because I'm not very good at creating four-color worlds and settings. In the worlds I create, at least some authorities and laws are corrupt and unjust, there are some realistic social issues that don't lend well to four-color heroism, and there are truly bad people that greviously harm innocents and the system does not deal well with. That's not to maliciously harass four-color heroes, it's that I deem a four-color world too implausible to heartfelt depict.

 

 

Moral COwerdice?

 

So a character who's beleif's say that life on earth is a testing ground, and afterwards we go to are eternal rest, but if you kill you go strait to hell is a coward? That would be to me a type of CvK

[JmOz]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I think he does now (in much Marvel continuity) but did not in WW II. People change. Supers change, both over time due to writers, and to reflect society. In Detective #27, Batman carried a gun.

 

In very recent continuity (ie breaking the terrorist's neck on live TV), I question whether we're seeing another change, back to a less total CvK. However, I'm inclined to write that one off as a glitch until more "evidence" is published.

 

Ultimates Cap has a CvK at a much lower level, if at all.

 

But it's important to recognize "total commitment" isn't "will never". In extremis, an ego roll at -5 will enable the limitation to be overcome. This is a roll I wouldn't expect anyone to try except in extreme cases, and I'd say this is where Cap got to some years ago when he was forced to gun down an Ultimatum agent. "It's him or numerous innocent people" provides a bonus, and a reason. And even so, this violation of a core personal principal (ie a psych lim at the "total" level" caused much soul-searching afterwards.

 

 

Comic book Myth: Batman used a gun

 

Batmam did not carry a gun in Detective 27

 

Detective 33, he does use a gun (to shoot a gas vial), he had it in his belt

 

Issue 35 shows a page 1 Splash of him with a smoking gun but it is not in the story

 

Issue 36 he uses a gun to "summon" the police, hard to tell if he got it off one of the thugs he just beat up or not

 

Issue 38 introduces robin, and it turns more light hearted

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Moral COwerdice?

 

So a character who's beleif's say that life on earth is a testing ground, and afterwards we go to are eternal rest, but if you kill you go strait to hell is a coward? That would be to me a type of CvK

 

A true hero would accept the possiblity of damning oneself to Hell in order to save the lives of millions, and deem that the fate of his own soul is not worth the lives of so many others. There's not a love greater, to give up Heaven for the sake of others...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

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...

 

Actually, it has a lot to do with it... but the costumes tend to be uniforms... or if flashy, flashy for a reason. I play a blend of comic elements with more "real" concepts. If you want to be a costumed crime fighter... great... but we're going to explore elements of how does this affect the legal process... how do you actually make a living at this... how does society at large respond to such actions... what will you actually do to find the crime, since most of it is done quietly and you can run around a city all night and never see crime happening... etc.

 

And if a player decides to use their powers to get laid... hey, why not? The exploration of a metahumans relation to normal people ("I don't need to eat or sleep, nor do I depend on any form of transportation... in fact I can fly... I don't get cold or hot... so what exactly DO I have in common with an actual human...) is a big part of the game. Some players strive to remain in contact with normal human events and actions... others become distanced and aloof... still others begin to see humans as something other than them, and become demi-god like in their actions... and the repercussions of such attitudes and the actions they generate are what makes for good story.

 

Players who find themselves with characters that just don't do anything, get left behind, manipulated, or whatever. This is a game that asks players to "have a reason for your character to be interesting and do stuff" so playing a character like Major Bummer (a great comic I really miss) might be ok for a one-off lark... but wouldn't be accepted for a campaign. If you aren't interested in having your character "do something" in a game... I'm just not going to have you in the game as a player, that's all.

 

All of this is, of course, coupled with knock-down drag-out fights between people hyped up on super energy, super hormones, super aggression and super-hard-to-really-hurt abilities... because (and I admit this is a bias of mine) it is pretty clear that metahuman/supers role playing is about power fantasies... we play these games because really, in our heart of hearts, if WE had superpowers, we'd be kicking the shit out of people "because we could" and the game is an outlet for that. I may be wrong, but I think anyone who says they aren't like that (of those of us who like these games) is just in denial. I just like to explore the social and political and personal ramifications of those actions, as part of a larger drama. (And believe me, that drama includes changing the world inherently with every action a metahuman takes) rather than just playing cops and robbers in a vague "status quo" world that honestly just isn't believable to me. (I'm not saying "realistic" as my game world is hardly that... but it is more "believable" in many instances, at least to me and my players.)

 

All of this means that core "superhero" genre concepts, like CvK, are not taken for granted. Each person is an individual with their own take on these, and the world reacts to them based on their actions, the circumstances, good information and mis-information... just like the real world. What a hero means is different for everyone... if you even care to be a hero... and the real question is not "are you a hero" or "will you kill" or anything... but again "You have power... what will you do with it? How will you change the world... because you can."

 

To each their own.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

My response is definitely an extreme, but it is the approach those like Batman will commonly use to support their views. Part of the Batman problem is that the character's been around a lot of years, and when we condense all his pulication history (even removing stopries retconned away) into the period Bats has been around, the Joker must break out what, weekly?

 

Let's say Batman kills the Joker for excactly the logical reasons propounded. Who's next? Two Face kills a klot of people, and Arkham's obviously a sieve. Mr. Szasz? The cannibal (name escapes me)? Blockbuster? (see recent Nightwing issues) Tarantula for killing Blockbuster? (again, see recent Nightwing issues) Some new-on-the -scene costumed killer?

 

What if we get one wrong? (oh, oops - things were not what they appeared with that new costumed "killer") Does Batman kill himself in remorse (or as the ultimate expression of justice for murderers), or does that get rationalized as "acceptable casualties"?

 

 

 

No question - there are at least attempts to keep the Joker locked up, and we do see him behind bars on a fairly regular basis. He's the ultimate extreme example of the "better to kill him and be done with it" character.

 

 

 

There is a massive difference, I agree. The question is how far down tyhe slope one will travel. My jaywalker comment comes from early appearances of the Punisher, so this is not unprecedented in even "four colour" (albeit somewhat grim four colour) comics.

But, Hugh, I'm not (nor do I believe anyone is) defending the Punisher as he's usually portrayed, with his reckless regard.

 

As to Batman, I think we're talking past each other...yes, that was my point, Batman won't kill because his personal demons would be unleashed and he would not stop. That is valid for many but probably not most and certainly not all heroes.

 

I think beyond Batman and some similar ones, you simply don't see that recurrent "madman killer gets loose again" in 4-color comics. Magneto and Dr. Doom, for all their badness, actually aren't mad killers. They just want to take over the world. Oh and there's the occasional death of a failed lackey, but, eh, small loss. But really, seriously, in the convention of 4-color comics, there's nothing wrong with the actions of grandiose master planner villains.

 

I contend beyond Batman and a few similar ones, 4-color comics don't (as they shouldn't) have this revolving door of ruthless killers, and so I just don't see your point in the particular (narrow) context. I hope the issue is I've now described it better so at least we're talking about the same thing, as I don't think we were.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

...I was not saying that superhumans that put laws before anything else do not exist. They do. They just are not likely to pursue the career of the independent vigilante superhero' date=' but to seek some kind of direct government sanction, and work as a super-cop, super-soldier, or super-spy.[/quote']

 

That's an excellent point. In my old Champions campaign, in fact, I had an agency called the FSPD (Federal Special Police Division, a department of the US Marshall Service which had been tasked with the duty of dealing with the capture and incarceration of paranormal criminals). A very small number of the FSPD personnel were "special agents": bona-fide super-powered agents.

 

I only reserve the right to show some little sneer if they follow a CvK code to the "I do not kill even to save millions" real extreme because IMO that's moral cowardice of the worst kind.

 

Personally, I think it's poor form to sneer at one's players (or their characters), unless it's clearly good-natured ribbing (it's important to keep one's sense of humor). That aside, there is a not-insiginificant number of people who have the "but that would make us just as bad as them" philosophy, and I think there is a strong tradition of this in the superhero genre. Personally, in the real world, I find that ridiculous: shooting a serial killer does not make you "just as bad". However, part of what I find truly interesting in the superhero genre is the playing out of just this kind of soul-searching, self-doubt, and examination of motives.

 

A superhero who never questions their actions is, in my opinion, a bit less than they could be.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Actually, it has a lot to do with it... but the costumes tend to be uniforms... or if flashy, flashy for a reason. I play a blend of comic elements with more "real" concepts. If you want to be a costumed crime fighter... great... but we're going to explore elements of how does this affect the legal process... how do you actually make a living at this... how does society at large respond to such actions... what will you actually do to find the crime, since most of it is done quietly and you can run around a city all night and never see crime happening... etc.

 

-SNIP-

 

All of this means that core "superhero" genre concepts, like CvK, are not taken for granted. Each person is an individual with their own take on these, and the world reacts to them based on their actions, the circumstances, good information and mis-information... just like the real world. What a hero means is different for everyone... if you even care to be a hero... and the real question is not "are you a hero" or "will you kill" or anything... but again "You have power... what will you do with it? How will you change the world... because you can."

 

To each their own.

Good post RDU Neil. I think you've caught rather well the sense of what post-4-colour superheroics fans mean when they talk about 'realism'. This is something I gravitated to natually when I first started GM'ing superheroes many years ago. I wanted to set up intrigues behind the scenes of scenarios that would eventually force players to confront serious choices about what their characters stood for, and exactly who they were trying to help (something inspired both by the comics I was reading, and by the other roleplayers I knew at the time).

 

So, for example, one of my plotlines involved an alien species that had started cloning well-known politicians (this was at the time of Thatcher's 2nd term, so figures like Michael Heseltine were involved in this) so that they could infiltrate the power structure and quietly start taking over. Pretty much all my players hated Thatcherism, so this would've confronted them with a choice between their own feelings, and their characters' role in the campaign. And for those who didn't have so much emotion invested in their dislike of the government, well they might've come into interesting conflict with the other characters (I trusted my players to handle this kind of thing well).

 

Another plotline I had in mind was based on the miners' strike, which was ongoing at the time. I wanted to put the characters in a position where the authorities 'asked' them to intervene on the picket lines against the miners. This was a straightforward attempt to bring the real world issues into the game (our superhero setting traditionally had our own real world as its background), and again to confront players with moral choices that would have consequences for their characters.

 

These sorts of plotlines aside, the game was always 4-colour, with all the familiar tropes. It's just that I wanted something different from the boy-scout morality of classic costumed cops and robbers.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Zornwil wrote:

I think beyond Batman and some similar ones, you simply don't see that recurrent "madman killer gets loose again" in 4-color comics. Magneto and Dr. Doom, for all their badness, actually aren't mad killers. They just want to take over the world. Oh and there's the occasional death of a failed lackey, but, eh, small loss. But really, seriously, in the convention of 4-color comics, there's nothing wrong with the actions of grandiose master planner villains.

 

Did you read the recent run of X-Men by Morrison? Magneto, hyped up on a mutant-super drug... takes over Manhattan, practically levels it, and rounds up all normal humans and slaughters them, hyping up groups of mutant followers to basically pull an "ethnic cleansing" type scenario against normals.

 

That ain't four-color... and that SHOULD (but probably won't) change how Magneto is dealt with by the X-Men. He went way over the line, and there should be no mercy next time.

 

The problem with Bronze/Iron Age comics (though I hate these terms) is not that superheroes started to kill, but that comics became even more unbelievable and contrived. In the Silver Age days, where villains pulled off wacky "capers" (I'm thinking the more campy DC stuff here, not Marvel's Silver Age) there was no reason to be too worried if the villain escaped.

 

Then things changed. The villains became total psychotics, vicious, maniacal, horrifically lethal... just so the heroes could be more "hard edged and brutal." But there is left this bizarre clinging to "don't kill" mentality. (To my mind, this is because a villain like the Joker is a piece of intellectual property, so you don't kill that off...) but it makes no sense in continuity where NOW when he excapes, he slaughters busloads of nuns. This paints a picture of a society that simply could not exist except in a comic book where they don't look to closely. The legal/penal system clearly does not work... heroes have tried again and again to play by old rules that simply do not work... you could begin to argue that such a world would make it "immoral" NOT to kill the Joker. I'm not claiming real world relevance here... I'm saying, in the world Batman inhabits, that has proven time and time again to be incapable of perpmanently stopping vicious human and metahuman killers... it is unethical for him NOT to take lethal action.

 

Afterwards, he can turn himself in, and serve out a life sentence in prison... he is taking responsibility for his actions... truly sacrificing himself for all those that the Joker would have eventually killed... but in the totally skewed modern "big name/status quo" comic book... it won't happen. It basically comes down to the fact that most comics are just internally inconsistent, and poor examples of source material... and even worse examples of ethical/moral behavior. There is simply no way to use them as examples for "the right way" to portray superheroes. For every example, there is a counter example, often with the same character, in the same series.

 

Comics do themselves a disservice, undermining their own literary worth, and just shouldn't be used as examples in a debate like this thread. Instead, I think it is best if we set up our own examples, from our own games, stories, whatever... to illustrate our points.

 

Anything else will just degenerate into... "... but there was issue #580.7, written by Shitfor Brains Fill-In Dude, where Batman -fill in the action- which is totally counter to what he did in..." kind of stuff.

 

Just ain't worth it.

[Wanderer]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Personally' date=' I think it's poor form to sneer at one's players (or their characters), unless it's clearly good-natured ribbing (it's important to keep one's sense of humor). [/quote']

 

Hmm, perhaps I chose the wrong term. Rephrase it as "Since I despise that kind of attitude so much, I cannot garantee that I would absolutely withstand the temptation to abuse GM's position to cause the offending character some kind of harassment". Same reason why I would never ever give absolute garantees about my conduct if put in a room to guard an amorous adolescent supermodel and one million dollars :grin:

 

 

That aside, there is a not-insiginificant number of people who have the "but that would make us just as bad as them" philosophy, and I think there is a strong tradition of this in the superhero genre. Personally, in the real world, I find that ridiculous: shooting a serial killer does not make you "just as bad". However, part of what I find truly interesting in the superhero genre is the playing out of just this kind of soul-searching, self-doubt, and examination of motives. A superhero who never questions their actions is, in my opinion, a bit less than they could be.

 

I too deem a good dose of self-searching and self-doubt one of the most interesting parts of superhero RP, and RP in general. Only, it must be about moral philosophies which I can respect. The "just as bad" argument, however, I honestly can have little respect with, because it completely ignores proportionality. Killing a public menace does not make you "just as bad", it makes you one who removed a public meance for the greater good. Of course, one should always be mindful of a) making your actions are proportionate to premises and consequences you take care to aim at the correct target c) you mind the potential slippery slope, so that killing irredeamable child molesters does not slide down to killing people who trespass on my lawn, but as long as a character shows some effort to mind that angle, he has done sufficient soul-searching for me. Endlessly angstful moaning because you prevented the serial killer from killing one yet more innocent by summarily snapping his neck is sick. Being proud, or at least comfortable, of doing the right thing, saving the innocent, and ending the public menace is nothing to be ashamed of.

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Comic book Myth: Batman used a gun

 

Batmam did not carry a gun in Detective 27

 

Detective 33, he does use a gun (to shoot a gas vial), he had it in his belt

 

Issue 35 shows a page 1 Splash of him with a smoking gun but it is not in the story

 

Issue 36 he uses a gun to "summon" the police, hard to tell if he got it off one of the thugs he just beat up or not

 

Issue 38 introduces robin, and it turns more light hearted

I could have sworn I read an old Batman where he fired a real gun, but regardless you obviously have done the research - thanks.

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

...But it's important to recognize "total commitment" isn't "will never". In extremis' date=' an ego roll at -5 will enable the limitation to be overcome. This is a roll I wouldn't expect anyone to try except in extreme cases, and I'd say this is where Cap got to some years ago when he was forced to gun down an Ultimatum agent. "It's him or numerous innocent people" provides a bonus, and a reason. And even so, this violation of a core personal principal (ie a psych lim at the "total" level" caused much soul-searching afterwards.[/quote']

Actually, as far the game rules say, a Total Commitment is a "Will Never".

 

Total:Character becomes totally useless or completely irrational in the situation, and will not change his mind for any reason; EGO Roll at -5 (minimum) required to change action (if the GM allows such a roll at all)

 

It clearly states that there is no roll. It's strictly a GM House Rule. If the GM allows such a roll, the guideline is a -5 (minimum).

 

This is just a clarification so that nobody else gets the wrong impression on this.

 

If you allow such a roll for your games, great. Have fun. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[zornwil]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Zornwil wrote:

 

 

Did you read the recent run of X-Men by Morrison?

 

Briefly, general comment, I don't read mainline superhero comics almost at all, haven't since the '70s. I got back into comics via Flaming Carrot, Johnny Nemo, various post-Dredd titles such as Axel Pressbutton and Lazer Eraser, and then later on back into "mainstream" comics via Sandman and Hellblazer. Just FYI. So when I comment on 4-color I'm constraining to the "classic" 4-color, I suppose. Though I do have a vague familiarity with current comics, but isn't it a foregone conclusion that current comics aren't really 4-color anymore? (which of course is not a good or bad thing per se)

 

Magneto, hyped up on a mutant-super drug... takes over Manhattan, practically levels it, and rounds up all normal humans and slaughters them, hyping up groups of mutant followers to basically pull an "ethnic cleansing" type scenario against normals.

 

That ain't four-color... and that SHOULD (but probably won't) change how Magneto is dealt with by the X-Men. He went way over the line, and there should be no mercy next time.

 

Oh I agree. As I stated, if the convention going in (such as wholesale slaughter of innocents) isn't 4-color, then the CvK thing is similarly not going to be and is a different angle.

 

As I've stated, you can't hold characters accountable to 4-color ethos in a non-4-color worlld.

 

The problem with Bronze/Iron Age comics (though I hate these terms) is not that superheroes started to kill, but that comics became even more unbelievable and contrived. In the Silver Age days, where villains pulled off wacky "capers" (I'm thinking the more campy DC stuff here, not Marvel's Silver Age) there was no reason to be too worried if the villain escaped.

 

Then things changed. The villains became total psychotics, vicious, maniacal, horrifically lethal... just so the heroes could be more "hard edged and brutal." But there is left this bizarre clinging to "don't kill" mentality. (To my mind, this is because a villain like the Joker is a piece of intellectual property, so you don't kill that off...) but it makes no sense in continuity where NOW when he excapes, he slaughters busloads of nuns. This paints a picture of a society that simply could not exist except in a comic book where they don't look to closely. The legal/penal system clearly does not work... heroes have tried again and again to play by old rules that simply do not work... you could begin to argue that such a world would make it "immoral" NOT to kill the Joker. I'm not claiming real world relevance here... I'm saying, in the world Batman inhabits, that has proven time and time again to be incapable of perpmanently stopping vicious human and metahuman killers... it is unethical for him NOT to take lethal action.

 

Afterwards, he can turn himself in, and serve out a life sentence in prison... he is taking responsibility for his actions... truly sacrificing himself for all those that the Joker would have eventually killed... but in the totally skewed modern "big name/status quo" comic book... it won't happen. It basically comes down to the fact that most comics are just internally inconsistent, and poor examples of source material... and even worse examples of ethical/moral behavior. There is simply no way to use them as examples for "the right way" to portray superheroes. For every example, there is a counter example, often with the same character, in the same series.

 

Comics do themselves a disservice, undermining their own literary worth, and just shouldn't be used as examples in a debate like this thread. Instead, I think it is best if we set up our own examples, from our own games, stories, whatever... to illustrate our points.

 

Anything else will just degenerate into... "... but there was issue #580.7, written by Shitfor Brains Fill-In Dude, where Batman -fill in the action- which is totally counter to what he did in..." kind of stuff.

 

Just ain't worth it.

 

All of which I think indicates these comics aren't 4-color and are "irrelevant" to what people want to talk about re 4-color here.

 

I think the issue in large part is the audience/interest of the large majority of HEROites on these boards (and particularly of a certain age group - older, like me) is playing at 4-color stuff and I think that you hear a lot of criticism of later-era non-4-color stuff, so I think that makes the issue of "current" comics (oddly) irrelevant to our conversation as it's developed.

 

However, to your point, as I think I've tried to state, if the world is brutal and the penal system incapable, I can see superheroes killing and being "heroic" in that context. I'm not sure what other choices they have - as someone (Beowulf? Can't remember off-hand) said earlier, one exception even in 4-color is "war" and much of the kinds of things that are being talked about are indeed "war" (wholesale ethnic cleansing, psycho killers loose on the streets daily, etc.).

[SCUBA Hero]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Anything else will just degenerate into... "... but there was issue #580.7' date=' written by Shitfor Brains Fill-In Dude, where Batman -fill in the action- which is totally counter to what he did in..." kind of stuff. [/quote']Actually, issue 581.7, dude.

 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

JOKE!!!

 

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

It clearly states that there is no roll. It's strictly a GM House Rule. If the GM allows such a roll' date=' the guideline is a -5 ([b']minimum[/b]).

 

This is just a clarification so that nobody else gets the wrong impression on this.

 

My players generally play to their psych's, not "take rolls to avoid them". If a character has a really legitimate reason to try to briefly overcome his "total commitment" psych, I'd be inclined to allow the roll.

 

If the player is constantly trying to roll to "beat" his psych's (be they moderate, strong or total), well that's why we have modifiers to xp for good or poor role playing. If the player tells me up front his character is going to buy off the psych and is therefore trying to resist it, fair enough - just dedicate a point per session to that. If he's just trying to curtail their impact, he'll lose xp for poor role playing.

 

A guy with a moderate code vs killing shouldn't be maing ego rolles left right and center to avoid its impact.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

As to Batman' date=' I think we're talking past each other...yes, that was my point, Batman won't kill because his personal demons would be unleashed and he would not stop. That is valid for many but probably not most and certainly not all heroes.[/quote']

 

I think it's valid for a lot of characters not that they necessarily would slide down the slope, but they are afraid they would. Most Supers who are forced to make this consideration have looked into the abyss.

 

I think beyond Batman and some similar ones' date=' you simply don't see that recurrent "madman killer gets loose again" in 4-color comics. Magneto and Dr. Doom, for all their badness, actually aren't mad killers. They just want to take over the world. Oh and there's the occasional death of a failed lackey, but, eh, small loss. But really, seriously, in the convention of 4-color comics, there's nothing wrong with the actions of grandiose master planner villains.[/quote']

 

Batman is the clear worst case example, and it's due to the psychotic nature of many of his villains, and the writers' propensity to (over) use them, exacerbated by having 4+ books a month.

 

I think Magneto and Doom are quite capable of taking lives if it suits their purposes, but it's a means to an end, unlike Joker and friends for whom the killing is the end unto itself.

 

However, anyone committing grandiose acts to take over the world has dfoubtless got some blood on his hands. Magneto has used EM pulses that knock out the power grid - was no one on life support? Were there no traffic fatalities?

 

[nb: Ignoring the most recent Magneto arc in X-men because "it was an imposter", of course]

 

I contend beyond Batman and a few similar ones' date=' 4-color comics don't (as they shouldn't) have this revolving door of ruthless killers, and so I just don't see your point in the particular (narrow) context. I hope the issue is I've now described it better so at least we're talking about the same thing, as I don't think we were.[/quote']

 

I definitely agree that, if you want the players to adhere to a code vs killing, it's important to provide villains and a world setting which make this a viable strategy. The revolving door of psychpaths definitely discourages that approach, encouraging a more final solution. This makes the psychopaths more appropriate to a darker game setting, whether more grim supers or Dark Champions.

 

This does, however, support the view that Supers who don't kill are more "heroic". The villains used for "heros who kill" must commonly be portrayed as more ruthless, maniacal, vile and/or evil so that their killers will look more heroic by comparison.

[JMcL63]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

All of which I think indicates these comics aren't 4-color and are "irrelevant" to what people want to talk about re 4-color here.

Right on the mark zornwil. The problem arises when people argue that non 4-colour stuff isn't even superheroes because it's not 4-colour. If you don't like non 4-colour- to read or to play- then all the more power to you. But to say that this stuff you don't like isn't the superhero genre despite all evidence to the contrary, well that's hardly reasonable, is it?

[schir1964]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

My players generally play to their psych's, not "take rolls to avoid them". If a character has a really legitimate reason to try to briefly overcome his "total commitment" psych, I'd be inclined to allow the roll.

 

If the player is constantly trying to roll to "beat" his psych's (be they moderate, strong or total), well that's why we have modifiers to xp for good or poor role playing. If the player tells me up front his character is going to buy off the psych and is therefore trying to resist it, fair enough - just dedicate a point per session to that. If he's just trying to curtail their impact, he'll lose xp for poor role playing.

 

A guy with a moderate code vs killing shouldn't be maing ego rolles left right and center to avoid its impact.

Hugh, not trying to pick on you or anything. My original post was clarifying that Total Comittment level means just that. I never meant to imply that a Player can take it and try to resist it. I was implying the opposite, that the Player shouldn't take Total Comittment if his concept didn't require/need/warrant such a severe level.

 

Now if the character takes a Moderate level, then he can roll to his heart's content. The roll itself is what slightly disadvantages the character, since sometimes he will fail his roll. However, if the Player also bought his EGO up, then disadvantage value goes away and the Player recieves no points for that Disadvantage.

 

Now if a character does have Total and violates it, then I usually replace that Disadvantage with another equal value one (as per the rules suggestion) and the character suffers the consequences of his actions. The better he roleplays this, the faster the consequences are mitigated. And regaining that particular Disadvantage would be nearly impossible. But that's just in my game. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Just A Guy Name]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

I could have sworn I read an old Batman where he fired a real gun' date=' but regardless you obviously have done the research - thanks.[/quote']I think in Detective #32 he kills the Monk and Dala (two vampires) with silver bullets from the .45S&W he favoured at that time. He also used the MG mounted in the Bat-Plane to kill one of Hugo Strange's Monster-Men. Through the early run of Batman in Detective, he seems to have had a typically pulp-era view towards dispatching his opponents:/

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

 

Comics do themselves a disservice' date=' undermining their own literary worth, and just shouldn't be used as examples in a debate like this thread.[/quote']

 

Then you would get what has happened with D&D, which has come its own genre, rather than being a reflection of anything else.

 

I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it's not what most people who play superhero role-playing games want.