Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

[OddHat]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Basically' date=' it's all about picking a point where you stop suspending belief, sticking to it, and being comfortable with it. Different things bother different people. For example, certain costumes bother me. Unless a hero/heroine has natural defenses, he/she should never be scantily clad (like female MA's in the equivalent of bikinis) and would, quite logically, armor themselves to some extent at all times.[/quote']

 

So the "Nude Invulnerability" rule is not applied in your campaigns?

[Zed-F]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

So the "Nude Invulnerability" rule is not applied in your campaigns?

 

I like the "Magical Tattoos" rule myself...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

For example' date=' certain costumes bother me. Unless a hero/heroine has natural defenses, he/she should never be scantily clad (like female MA's in the equivalent of bikinis) and would, quite logically, armor themselves to some extent at all times.[/quote']

 

That was Chris Claremont's (IIRC) position in the 70's when he changed Ms. Marvel's costume, and designed Phoenix's. However, the tactical advantages oif such a costume were explained (tongue in cheek) some years ago in the World's Worst Comics Awards, where it was pointed out by two "sacanty painted on costumes villainesses" that "Guys with erections can't shoot straight".

[bcholmes]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

The Authority started out... different in tone than a normal superhero book. I actually liked it' date=' if only because they wanted to make a difference in a fairly dark and dystopian paranormal world. It was a world that required extreme measures, and Jenny Spark's manta of "We can do better than this and/or Make/create a better world" was a noble cause. But then it descended into pretty unpleasant violence for violence sake.[/quote']

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say, but I think I'd describe my disenchantment regarding The Authority as relating to the writing losing its crispness.

 

In essence, I feel that the stories lost their commentary on politics and ethics, and just became stories about people hitting things really hard. For me, the whole question about the Authority killing their enemies is pretty tangential to the quality of the book.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Unless a hero/heroine has natural defenses' date=' he/she should never be scantily clad (like female MA's in the equivalent of bikinis) and would, quite logically, armor themselves to some extent at all times.[/quote']I disagree. It's a genre convention, at least until the Iron Age. And virtually no superhero costumes, with the obvious exception of powered-armor types like Iron Man, provide defenses against attacks. Captain America's chainmail costume and Batman's retconned suit are rare exceptions, not the rule. For all practical purposes spandex costumes might as well be body paint.

 

Fantastic Four's costumes, no protection. X-Men's, no protection. Spider-Man's, no protection. Even heroes who supposedly wear "armor" such as Thor and Wonder Woman, have it only on their torsos and they're already so tough it's utterly superfluous.

 

Now it's certainly possible to argue that for the sake of realism more supers should wear body armor. No doubt most Dark Champions and Iron Age heroes do, because those types of comics and games are grittier. But when you're talking about four-color characters who can juggle tanks, dodge bullets, and fire laser beams from their eyes, it's rather silly to insist on realism. Superhero role-playing isn't about realism, it's about escapism and a highly stylized representation of a fictional genre. Skimpy and body-hugging costumes make as much sense as anything else in the superhero world.

[OddHat]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Has anyone run a campaign where the Joker-equivalent does treat their prison as a temporary hostel?

 

I have, as a GM.

 

Around twelve years ago or so, I ran Escape from Stronghold for my (then) players. I had already run adventures where villains escaped from the court house, and where plains and vans transporting villains had been highjacked and the villains freed. The heroes had learned that they couldn't leave the bad guys out of their sight for a minute if they wanted to get them to prison. I thought Escape was a great adventure. All of the players foes, all the villains they'd fought and feared, threatening to escape in one massive battle! I gave the players clues and time, and they stopped most of the prisoners. A few slipped past. The most powerful of those that had been incarcerated. They went back to their crimes, and their crimes became even more bloody.

 

I was surprised when my players threw away genre conventions and just started killing Villains.

 

So, thinking about how I'd GMed, I trashed the "Cool Villains Always Escape" rule. It was that or force the heroes to become serial killers if they wanted to protect the public.

 

The villain escape is a classic bit of comic-book business. It works in Comics because the writer has full control of the actors involved. In RPGs I've GMed it, and I've played it. In light-hearted campaigns, it can work. As a one time event in a serious game, it can work. As a re-occuring event in a serious game, your players will turn into killers, unless you railroad them completely.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

I disagree. It's a genre convention, at least until the Iron Age. And virtually no superhero costumes, with the obvious exception of powered-armor types like Iron Man, provide defenses against attacks. Captain America's chainmail costume and Batman's retconned suit are rare exceptions, not the rule. For all practical purposes spandex costumes might as well be body paint.

 

Fantastic Four's costumes, no protection. X-Men's, no protection. Spider-Man's, no protection. Even heroes who supposedly wear "armor" such as Thor and Wonder Woman, have it only on their torsos and they're already so tough it's utterly superfluous.

 

Now it's certainly possible to argue that for the sake of realism more supers should wear body armor. No doubt most Dark Champions and Iron Age heroes do, because those types of comics and games are grittier. But when you're talking about four-color characters who can juggle tanks, dodge bullets, and fire laser beams from their eyes, it's rather silly to insist on realism. Superhero role-playing isn't about realism, it's about escapism and a highly stylized representation of a fictional genre. Skimpy and body-hugging costumes make as much sense as anything else in the superhero world.

 

 

Actually, I think the FF's costumes have provided some degree of protection for a while, and they finally included some armoring in the X-Men's costumes a few years back.

 

And frankly, I don't care about claims that unprotective costumes are genre. If my character does not have innate resistant defense of some form, than he's damn well going to wear something more protective than body paint.

[caris]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Basically' date=' it's all about picking a point where you stop suspending belief, sticking to it, and being comfortable with it. Different things bother different people. For example, certain costumes bother me. Unless a hero/heroine has natural defenses, he/she should never be scantily clad (like female MA's in the equivalent of bikinis) and would, quite logically, armor themselves to some extent at all times.[/quote']

 

All times? "Honey, I'll be ready to go to Le Snootey-tootie as soon as I get the bullet proof vest on." Isn't that pushing it just hair? Or if you prefer: "Black Widow, there is a suspect we want you to observe at a fund raising banquet. Will you go undercover for us?"

 

There are times when the armor just isn't appropriate. Now I assume that in reality you are talking about the character's "standard" costume. What I want to know is why wouldn't your characters with natural defenses also want to slip on the additional armor?

[Metaphysician]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Well, there's sfx concerns ( really, does anyone thing a bulletproof vest would meaningfully add to even Ironclad's durability?? ).

[caris]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Ironclad could support something heavier and more durable than a bullet proof vest. So, yes, even within sfx, I could see him being able to wear something that would provide additional Def.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Actually, I think the FF's costumes have provided some degree of protection for a while, and they finally included some armoring in the X-Men's costumes a few years back.

 

And frankly, I don't care about claims that unprotective costumes are genre. If my character does not have innate resistant defense of some form, than he's damn well going to wear something more protective than body paint.

Since I probably haven't read an X-Men or FF comic in 15 years, I can't comment on their level of protection now. But certainly their earliest incarnations did not have any armor. The often expressed neatest feature of the Fantastic Four's costumes were that they were made of "unstable molecules" which allowed the costumes to stretch, endure flame or turn invisible as the wearer did. At best they might provide some level of insulation against inclement weather. I certainly wouldn't consider Gore-Tex to be armor.

 

And I suspect any added armor in the X-Men's costumes had much more to do with the comic entering the Iron Age and becoming "edgier" than it did with character survivability. Armor looks and sounds cooler than just spandex. Certainly none of their costumes had armor in the days of Marvel Girl/Phoenix, Cyclops, Beast, et al.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Yeah, but that would be extra effort and resources to do so. IOW, its not just a matter of slapping on Ironclad some standard issue kevlar.

[caris]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Yes, but given that most "armored" costumes imply a level of tech that far exceeds kevlar in terms of the bulk to protection ratio, I would not think that it really would be that much more difficult to find Ironclad something, than it is to find the "magic spandex" that passes for "armor" in most comic books, like for example what ever defense is given by the FF's costumes or most X-Men's costumes.

[Starlord]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

I disagree. It's a genre convention' date=' at least until the Iron Age. And virtually no superhero costumes, with the obvious exception of powered-armor types like Iron Man, provide defenses against attacks. Captain America's chainmail costume and Batman's retconned suit are rare exceptions, not the rule. For all practical purposes spandex costumes might as well be body paint.[/quote']

I think if you state from the beginning "This is a golden age campaign, we'll be following all inherent genre conventions" then the discussion is moot. I happen to run 4 color campaigns with a bit of every age mixed in. However, I'm just making a general comment about the discussion as far as what you apply to your campaign. I think most people have their little hangups or idiosyncracies when it comes to playing Supers and very few people will totally commit themselves to the idea that "Hey, these are impossible people in an impossible world, so therefore, ANYTHING is possible." Certain levels of superhero physics, genre conventions, super psychology make someone go, "Waitaminnit, for some reason, my suspension of belief stops right THERE." Mine, for some reason, happens to be costumes. In the most miniscule of superfights normal fabric or spandex would be shredded pretty quickly and most superheroines would be protecting their modesty 2-3 times a week. Why does it bother me? It just does.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

That's why the intelligent heroine wears Comics Code Authority brand undergarments--they may not provide actual protection, but they'll protect a girl's modesty through any abuse! (saw this in an old She-Hulk comic)

 

Zeropoint

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Since I probably haven't read an X-Men or FF comic in 15 years, I can't comment on their level of protection now. But certainly their earliest incarnations did not have any armor. The often expressed neatest feature of the Fantastic Four's costumes were that they were made of "unstable molecules" which allowed the costumes to stretch, endure flame or turn invisible as the wearer did. At best they might provide some level of insulation against inclement weather. I certainly wouldn't consider Gore-Tex to be armor.

 

And I suspect any added armor in the X-Men's costumes had much more to do with the comic entering the Iron Age and becoming "edgier" than it did with character survivability. Armor looks and sounds cooler than just spandex. Certainly none of their costumes had armor in the days of Marvel Girl/Phoenix, Cyclops, Beast, et al.

 

Actually, both issues have the same answer. Unstable molecules themselves provide some measure of protection. The costumes are virtually indestructible (the reason only SPider Man has costume trouble in Sercret War). X-Men have been using unstable molecules since at least Giant Size X-Men #1, when Xavier mentions them to his new recruits.

 

The implied Marvel line is that these costumes always provided protection, wejust didn't yap about it.

[Susano]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

For example' date=' certain costumes bother me. Unless a hero/heroine has natural defenses, he/she should never be scantily clad (like female MA's in the equivalent of bikinis) and would, quite logically, armor themselves to some extent at all times.[/quote']

 

I highly recommend you never look at any game art for FATAL FURY, KING OF FIGHTERS, DEAD OR ALIVE, DARKSTALKERS, or STREET FIGHTER II +

 

[Susano]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

I think part of the problem is we're looking at the number of times the Joker (for example) has escaped prison/asylum in 60+ years of history. I don't think any of our campaigns are going to last that long! I don't see a campaign going on long enough to requre that level of villain recycling.

 

May I point out that technically, the Joker hasn't been around for 60+ years either. He's been active for what? 15?

 

Comic time and real world time are two very different things. Especially with all the retconns and reboots Marvel and DC do.

[Korvar]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Well, so are real time and game time

 

The point being that the problem of the Joker's repeated escapes are due to the character's 60+ history. Every so often, some writer thinks it's time for a Joker story and out he comes. It's only when you look back at the accumulated back history that you notice just how many times it's happened. If there's (say) one Joker story every two years real time, that's thirty times he's Done Something Bad and is still around to do more.

 

And of course it gets even worse when you consider the compression you mention.

 

However, as I said, in the average Champions campaign, I don't think it'll crop up; the campaign just won't last that long.

 

Just one of those things were comics and roleplaying games are different, even in the same genre.

[ChuckB]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

In comics, there are a few elements that it's best not to think about too much.

1 recurring villains (Joker is the best or worst example) who rack up a huge body count over time.

2 Teenage sidekicks and their ramifications.

RPGs can work around this stuff a little better, as the GM can make it work.

Personally, don't mind when PCs kill as long as it's in character and their reasons are valid/justified.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

And if that's OK with your players, groovy. If I played that card too often, my players would stop bothering to bring killers in alive.

 

Moderation, eh?

 

Fine... the players take the gloves off, so do all of the villains, plus the law enforcement authorities who move the PCs from the "good guy" box to the "armed and dangerous bad guy" box.

 

Moderation, yes.

[OddHat]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Fine... the players take the gloves off, so do all of the villains, plus the law enforcement authorities who move the PCs from the "good guy" box to the "armed and dangerous bad guy" box.

 

Moderation, yes.

 

And it would thus become a dark Iron Age campaign, something I usually try to avoid.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Anyone see the Superman story where he fights The Elite (an obvious stab at The Authority)? Especially the end where the makes his speech about how easy it is to kill' date=' and how hard it is to try and "do the right thing" when everyone else wants blood? His statement to The Elite basically was to thank them for showing him what he [b']could[/b] become and for reinforcing his desire to fight against it.

 

Yes, and I love that issue. The follow-up where their leader (I forget his name, sorry) telepaths his way into Supe's head and downloads the info about his personal life as Clark Kent to literally every villain on Earth for revenge was great too.

 

Not to mention trying to get Supes to kill him for murdering Lois... This may sound odd, but I didn't expect such an intense story from Superman.

[zornwil]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

I think the very earliest Superman and Batman comics were really more holdovers from the era of pulp fiction than actually Golden Age. And of course, they were mostly dealing with mobsters and (later, during the war) spies and Nazi/Jap spies and saboteurs. Batman's pistols went away very early in his career; IIRC like issue #4 of Detective Comics. (And I'll note here that non-comic pulp fiction heroes like the Avenger and Doc Savage went out of their way to avoid killing criminals.) The most significant new innovation about the earliest Batman and Superman comics was the fact they wore costumes to fight crime. Batman was certainly not smarter, stronger, more skillful or better equipped than his pulp contempory, Doc Savage.

 

I'd thus consider the introduction of the Code vs Killing via the Comics Code to be the real beginning of the Golden Age. Like most new things, superhero comics had to first evolve from their original source into something different from their immediate ancestor.

 

A super who accidentally kills is still a superhero; one who deliberately kills is a mere supervigilante. As was was noted above, a cop who shoots a gangster during the commission of a crime is OK; one who laughs about it and looks for opportunities to kill again is a sicko and needs to be locked up. I think it's perfectly reasonable to apply the same standard to superheroes.

Just out of curiousity, what would you call what others call the Golden Age? (The Comics Code was around the early Silver Age, most would say from how I've seen the comics eras dated) How about (in your topology) calling the pre-Comics Code era the Pulp Age?

 

I've said elsewhere, I always have trouble with this Golden/Silver/Bronze/Iron set of designations. I get them, and I see usefulness, I'm not challenging that. But the implication is that "Golden Age" is some revered high end of the art, and the others have similar implications which all imply various forms of distinctions that 300 years from now will probably seem quaint or even ludicrous.

 

But I'm just arguing semantics and nothing more there, so it's probably not worth discussing.

 

What I will say is that I think KA raises a great point; I think heroes who kill a villain in regular combat with no mal-intent are doing okay, personaly, and can still be considere quite heroic. And still have a mild CvK, even (so long as it is mild and the killing was essentially accidental).

[zornwil]

Re: Death with Dignity : An examination of the Golden Age

 

Seems to me the comics code wa smore about horror, violence and sex than necessarily about death. DC wasn't really injured by the Code (they didn't have to move Batman and Robin to separate residences to deal with Wertham's allegation Bats was a pedophile, for example).

 

EC comics, on the other hand, was put out of business because their horror, "true crime", etc. books could never meet the Code standards. It was the more lurid books that were realy put out of business - DC was OK with the code from the start.

 

And Marvel villains were always (appearing to) die in the early '60's, code notwithstanding. Avengers #15(?) where Zemo died was title "By my hand shall perish a villain" or some such. But, as noted at the start of the thread, the heroes mourned a loss - they didn't dance about on their graves.

 

Not to say Code silliness wasn't out there. Stan Lee's Spidey issue that ultimately broke the back of the code was requested by the government to send a message that drugs were bad/dangerous. You couldn't say "Zombie" [Zuvembie was OK]

 

Hmmm...I recall a letter in a '70's Marvel Two In One asking why there was no Code stamp on a particllar issue. The letter noted that there were no durgs, and no real violence, so it must have been sex. His conclusoion? The Thing should stop dating Alica Masters, or at least put a shirt on! Truth was, the stamp fell off on the way to the printer.

By 1954 superhero comics seemed to be headed to death, with readership way down in general and only perennial favorites such as Batman and Superman having any visibility, with many other types of comics doing well. In fact the Code helped superhero comics indirectly as it stunted some other genra, virtually killing horror for a while and containing/limiting the extent of romance comics. It was most unfortunate as it really curtailed, I believe, adult readership that was growing as a result of increased sophistication in comics, and set comics (in general, as a media, not commenting upon superhero comics as such) back by 2 decades essentially - IMHO.

 

As another sidenote, there is considerable contention that encoded into the Code was the vendetta of Archie Comics (which stood everything to gain by homogenizing and dumbing down comics) against EC for EC's lampooning of Archie. Of course EC was also a primary target of those who felt horror comics were creating a delinquent youth culture and general deviancy, so that by all means was a huge factor, too.

 

And to be fair to Dr. Wertham, he advocated a rating system and not industry self-censorship (though he would have insisted on rating the "homosexual" couple of Batman and Robin with some sort of rating oriented to older readers).