Avemgers + Politics

[Archangel Gabri]

I'm thinking about putting together a Champions campaign in response to the current political state of the world. (Half the fun of being a SuperHero is that you can do something about big problems, and political problems can't be directly solved with most superpowers.)

 

I know I want the power level to be planetary, not cosmic. These heroes should be among the most powerful in the world, that's why I'm thinking something like the Avengers.

 

I've got some players who are essentially novices at SuperHero roleplaying, and I've had a ton of experience with it. What I'm looking for is interesting source material, and good ideas for villains and scenarios. I think that Osama has to be an arch-villain, but I want more storytelling flexibility than real-world-only badguys will give me.

 

Anybody got suggestions?

[Vigil]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Personally, I wouldn't go with an Osama type. He's too flavor of the month...hell, it seems even George Bush has forgotten about him! The one possible way that I would use an Osma type is to force the PCs to confront the blindness of their cultre (after all, using the Osma model, the US is the only nation in History to use a weapon of mass destruction (2 nukes) on the civilian population of another nation (Japan) which puts the USA way out in front in the terorist sweepstakes. As I said, the way I'd use an Osama type is to show how a culture's arrogance can come home to roost. In comics, it seems that many people equate Magneto with Osama as a mutant "terrorist". This is a fundamental misunderstanding on many levels. Magneto, when wrtitten properly as in the brilliant "God Loves, Man Kills" (to me the high water mark in X-Men) isn't a terrorist. Rather he's a dark messiah who challenges the X-Men with the plausibility of his vision. I love characters like that. For real world type situations...just for starters...would you cure hunger when you know it will reslut in an even greater population explosion...which will result in even greater hunger? Would you redistribute wealth forcibly? Would you cure disease without really understanding why disease exists and what it's function is? These are big questions and tough to handle in game sitautions. A good example of how to craft a villian along these lines is the classic "Deathwalker" episode of Babylon 5, whereat Jadhur (the Deathwalker) creates an anti-agapic which virtually guarantees immortality but it requires the life force of another person to make it work. So, would you kill or cull the weak for the powerful to become immortal? I think the villlain type you are looking for is something like that.

 

Vigil

[starblaze]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Personally, I wouldn't go with an Osama type. He's too flavor of the month...hell, it seems even George Bush has forgotten about him! The one possible way that I would use an Osma type is to force the PCs to confront the blindness of their cultre (after all, using the Osma model, the US is the only nation in History to use a weapon of mass destruction (2 nukes) on the civilian population of another nation (Japan) which puts the USA way out in front in the terorist sweepstakes. As I said, the way I'd use an Osama type is to show how a culture's arrogance can come home to roost. In comics, it seems that many people equate Magneto with Osama as a mutant "terrorist". This is a fundamental misunderstanding on many levels. Magneto, when wrtitten properly as in the brilliant "God Loves, Man Kills" (to me the high water mark in X-Men) isn't a terrorist. Rather he's a dark messiah who challenges the X-Men with the plausibility of his vision. I love characters like that. For real world type situations...just for starters...would you cure hunger when you know it will reslut in an even greater population explosion...which will result in even greater hunger? Would you redistribute wealth forcibly? Would you cure disease without really understanding why disease exists and what it's function is? These are big questions and tough to handle in game sitautions. A good example of how to craft a villian along these lines is the classic "Deathwalker" episode of Babylon 5, whereat Jadhur (the Deathwalker) creates an anti-agapic which virtually guarantees immortality but it requires the life force of another person to make it work. So, would you kill or cull the weak for the powerful to become immortal? I think the villlain type you are looking for is something like that.

 

Vigil

 

I remember that episode! Kosh ended up destroying her and her vessel. He explained that we weren't ready for immortality.

[sinanju]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Personally' date=' I wouldn't go with an Osama type. He's too flavor of the month...hell, it seems even George Bush has forgotten about him! The one possible way that I would use an Osma type is to force the PCs to confront the blindness of their cultre (after all, using the Osma model, the US is the only nation in History to use a weapon of mass destruction (2 nukes) on the civilian population of another nation (Japan) which puts the USA way out in front in the terorist sweepstakes.[/quote']

 

I beg to differ. Yes, the US used two nuclear bombs on Japan. Big whoop. Would it have been any less "terroristic" if the US had performed traditional heavy aerial bombardment and turned Hiroshima and Nagasaki into Dresden-style firestorms? I don't think so. It would have been more difficult, of course, and required major fleet operations (and thus, a lot of American casualties). But the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been just as dead.

 

I'd also think that building camps and marching millions of innocents into poison-gas showers and ovens far outweighs a military attack (even a nuclear attack) on the terror scale. Not to mention numerous other acts of genocide (or attempted genocide). That they're performed piecemeal, with rifles or knives doesn't make them any less terrifying, or successful in too many cases.

[Vigil]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I absolutely agree that what the Nazis did was abominable...but does that excuse America's behaviour. You can't be a "shining city on a hill" with blood covering the windows. The Nazi's were justly tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I just find it remarkable that there's no such thought toward America's actions. You mention the fact that many more soldiers on both sides would have died in an invasion of Japan, proably along with loads of civilian casualties. You're absolutely right again...except for the fact that that's the military's job...to die for the country. It is not the military's job to drop nukes on undefended civilian populations. That's more of a terrorist thing. If you're going to throw the label "terrorist" around have a close look at the US's ugly record before you do so. Now you may be able to argue that what Harry Truman did he ultimately did out of compassion and out of a desire to end the war as quickly as possible, but again, that's another thing and it does absolutely nothing to deny the fact that according to the text book the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terroristic actions. In closing you say "big whooop" as to the dropping of the bombs. If the next nuke is detonated in New York or Chicago, I hope you're as callous and cavalier. Nothing like Yankee arrogance...

 

Vigil

[Guest rbezold]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I have no problem with Osama as a bad guy, and neither should anyone else.

And as for using him in a Champions campaign, so what? America's political enemies have been fodder for comic heroes since the Golden Age. There isn't a major hero, Marvel or DC who hasn't had to deal with a nazi/commie/terrorist at some point in his/her career.

 

That said, I think the focus of any 'political' oriented campaign should be the tension you create between the players and their superiors (if any) over when and where the political situation allows/requires them to do anything.

 

I once ran a campaign where the players were given a choice between joining the Justice League International and the Avengers.

 

Justice League: It's run by the UN, so you're not allowed to enter any country without (A) the country's permission or ( a mandate from the Security Council. The plus side to this was that you had diplomatic immunity in virtually every country in the world. The minus side was that you never got called for anything unless it was a natural disaster, an alien invasion, or the Hulk on a rampage.

 

Avengers: You have darn near unlimited authority within the US. You are always presumed to be acting in the best interests of the US. The plus side is you have the full co-operation of law enforcement, military, medical, and any other institution you can think of. The minus side is you have to answer to four people: The president, the attorney general, the secretary of state, and special agent Geyrich. And of course, you are always acting in the best interests of the President, whether you voted for him or not.

 

Everyone in the campaign decided being an Avenger with all the perks was way cooler. Then I sprung the surprise on them. Since they had so much authority from the President, they couldn't go overseas without it looking like the President was evoking the emergency powers act. So going after Eurostar in their hidden base in France could be construed by the the world as an act of war by the US against France. I let them abuse their perks as much as they wanted, then every third game or so, I gave them a situation they wern't allowed to deal with, just to drive them crazy

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

A very similar topic was raised on RPGnet recently, resulting in a great deal of thoughtful discussion and many interesting ideas:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=153742

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I absolutely agree that what the Nazis did was abominable...but does that excuse America's behaviour.

 

America's behavior doesn't need an excuse. War is war, and Nagasaki and Hiroshima were legitimate military targets. I can give you the exact reasons for this, but this is really a discussion for the NGD boards.

 

You can't be a "shining city on a hill" with blood covering the windows. The Nazi's were justly tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I just find it remarkable that there's no such thought toward America's actions.

 

I find it remarkable that you believe such incredibly idiotic things. I also find it remarkable that anyone believes they have any authority to hold America accountable.

 

You mention the fact that many more soldiers on both sides would have died in an invasion of Japan, proably along with loads of civilian casualties. You're absolutely right again...except for the fact that that's the military's job...to die for the country. It is not the military's job to drop nukes on undefended civilian populations. That's more of a terrorist thing. If you're going to throw the label "terrorist" around have a close look at the US's ugly record before you do so.

 

The fact is that the military's job isn't "to die for his country." To quote General Patton, "The soldier's job isn't to die for his country. It's to make the other, poor dumb bastard die for his country." The military's job is to kill. The fact is that Japanese propoganda at the time depicted Americans as vicious cannibals who ate their fallen enemies. The entire civilain population of Japan was ready to fight until the Emperor went on the radio and told them that Japan had surrendered. He didn't do that until we nuked them, twice. The Japanese military commanders were still going to push forward with war, except the principles of Bushido and honor that they had mouthed respect for then demanded that they follow the Emperor's wishes (and the fact that the entire population had just heard the Emperor speak for the first time, and they wouldn't have gone against his wishes).

 

Now you may be able to argue that what Harry Truman did he ultimately did out of compassion and out of a desire to end the war as quickly as possible, but again, that's another thing and it does absolutely nothing to deny the fact that according to the text book the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terroristic actions.

l

 

According to WHAT text book? I'm sorry if I didn't read the Teacher's Edition of "I Hate America 101", but the fact that you even try and make this point makes me sick to my stomach.

 

 

Look, I really don't want to get into a big discussion about this, but you're throwing rocks at the hornets nest here. More people died in the firebombing of Dresden than did in the dropping of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact is, people were living in those cities the next day. While the weapons were very destructive, they were dropped in a time of war against an entrenched enemy. They resulted in less deaths, both military and civilian. They were not terrorist attacks.

[Agent X]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I absolutely agree that what the Nazis did was abominable...but does that excuse America's behaviour. You can't be a "shining city on a hill" with blood covering the windows. The Nazi's were justly tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. I just find it remarkable that there's no such thought toward America's actions. You mention the fact that many more soldiers on both sides would have died in an invasion of Japan, proably along with loads of civilian casualties. You're absolutely right again...except for the fact that that's the military's job...to die for the country. It is not the military's job to drop nukes on undefended civilian populations. That's more of a terrorist thing. If you're going to throw the label "terrorist" around have a close look at the US's ugly record before you do so. Now you may be able to argue that what Harry Truman did he ultimately did out of compassion and out of a desire to end the war as quickly as possible, but again, that's another thing and it does absolutely nothing to deny the fact that according to the text book the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terroristic actions. In closing you say "big whooop" as to the dropping of the bombs. If the next nuke is detonated in New York or Chicago, I hope you're as callous and cavalier. Nothing like Yankee arrogance...

 

Vigil

Keep this crap on the NGD boards please. Nothing like YOUR arrogance...

[Vigil]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Hey I don't want to fight about this either, Champsguy.

 

All I would like to see is some sort of ownership for America's track record which hasn't exactly been sparkling. To me, the diffciulty is the fact that America (and by America here I mean some sort of vast nebulous construct composed primarily of politicians and corporations and "special Interests" as opposed to by real people. I've been to the US many times and have found, surprise surprise, that most Americans (like most people everywhere) are decent, honest and hardworking.) It's not the people that I blame, not for a second. It's the politicians and concepts like Manifest Destiny or, more recently, Cheney's Blueprint for the 21st Century or the USA Patriot Act which are frigthening fascist manifestos and which heave been foisted on the citizenry by corrupt administrations. I think the difficulty here, and the thing that I'm trying to point out is that military power in no way equals moral authority or moral correctness.

 

That being said, I find a few of your comments to be revealing.

 

Quote: I find it remarkable that you believe such incredibly idiotic things. I also find it remarkable that anyone believes they have any authority to hold America accountable

 

Are you saying the concept of the "shining city" is idiotic? If so, I guess you'lll have to take the up with Ronald Regan cause he actually believed and tried to leaven America's military might with morality and humanity and decency. He acted from moral principles as best he could, not from military agendas.

 

Beyond that, it may (and apparently does) come as a huge surprise to you that America, while being a continent (or part of one) is not an island. America does not exist in a vaccuum. While the most powerful nation on Earth, militarily, America is still a part of the world community and the current administrations disastrously short sighted and arrogant approach to, and policy in, Iraq demonstrate this.

 

What I'm trying to convey to you here is that yes, Champsguy, actions do have consequences.

 

Do you think the terrorists just woke up one morning and thought "Hey, I'm gonna hate America!" No, they didn't. Their actions, while entirely reprehensible and horrendous, have not been spawned in a vaccuum, either. They've been spawned by a policy of covert and overt interference in other nations by the US for decades now (if you don't believe this maybe you should check out Alan Moore's "Brought to LIght" among others). A policy which embraces such morally worthy actions as assassination, mutual armament for mutual annihilition (remember the Iran/Iraq war back when Saddam was a favored pet?) and regional destabilization (virtually all of south Central America). But let's move on, this has all been covered millions of times before.

 

The final point I want to adress is your comment:

 

More people died in the firebombing of Dresden than did in the dropping of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

So this makes it okay? Beaucse not as many people died it's okay to target civilians? I think, rather, that both Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were horrible, ugly, miltary decisions. Were they valid? Given the world that resulted, I think so. Do they sit easily? No.

 

In closing, I just want to reiterate that I am not, in fact, anti-American. I co-host a radio show every week with a good friend from Oklahoma and I have lots of friends and colleagues in the States who are all great, decent, people. And, as I stated at the top, my grievance isn't with them or with you. It's with the policy and the smug, cynical outlook held by smug, cynical, politicans that holds that America isn't accountable. That being said, this is my final word here, cause I don't want to fight about this either: what I am stressing here is that you can't hold yourself out as a moral paragon and act immorally. That's called hypocrisy.

 

Vigil

[Archangel Gabri]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I realize that putting the word "politics" in the name of this thread might lead one to think I'm trying to start a political discussion.

 

I'm not.

 

I'm looking for some ideas about how to implement a SuperHero campaign that has heavy political overtones, and even some political subject matter.

 

I very much like the idea of a "villain" who's political views challenge the heroes where they are most vulnerable: their confidence. A badguy that doesn't seem so bad makes you wonder why you're fighting him.

 

Also, some of the point of the campaign is to give my players a cathartic outlet for their political discomfort. Making them feel guilty for what Harry Truman did is NOT on the agenda.

 

Thank you for your continued input.

[jackalope]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I also find it remarkable that anyone believes they have any authority to hold America accountable.

 

Damn tootin! We're America, we're super powerful, therefore we don't have to hold ourselves accountable to ANY standard of ethics or morality. We're so damn powerful, we get to define "Right" for the whole world.

 

Because Might makes Right, right? And we got the might, right? So fuck decency, fuck morality, fuck accountability, let's just cowboy up and run roughshod over the world as is our Manifest Right!

 

YEE-HA!!!

 

---

 

I got your authority to hold America accountable for it's actions right here. it's called my US citizenship and right to vote.

[Rene]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I'm looking for some ideas about how to implement a SuperHero campaign that has heavy political overtones, and even some political subject matter.

 

I very much like the idea of a "villain" who's political views challenge the heroes where they are most vulnerable: their confidence. A badguy that doesn't seem so bad makes you wonder why you're fighting him.

 

Also, some of the point of the campaign is to give my players a cathartic outlet for their political discomfort. Making them feel guilty for what Harry Truman did is NOT on the agenda.

 

Okay, I'll try to give you some tips that hopefully you could use, no matter what your political views. They're kinda obvious and perhaps you have thought about all this before, but...

 

Option 1: Manicheist campaign. Find where your players are in the political/social spectrum and create villains that are their opposites. This isn't sophisticated, but can be very cathartic.

 

Option 2: Moral ambiguity campaign. As 1, but create villains that support the same ideals that players are sympathetic to, only taken to extremes, ie using villanous methods to defend causes the players deem "noble".

 

Option 1.5: This can be the most rewarding, and is a mix of 1 and 2. Opponents with a cause your players are against, but depicted with some sympathy.

 

All this not mentioning what someone already talked about above. Maybe the players don't like what THEIR side is doing, but the other side seems even worse.

[Vigil]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I'm more than willing to let things drop and get on with the much more serious business of gaming.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Damn tootin! We're America, we're super powerful, therefore we don't have to hold ourselves accountable to ANY standard of ethics or morality. We're so damn powerful, we get to define "Right" for the whole world.

 

Because Might makes Right, right? And we got the might, right? So fuck decency, fuck morality, fuck accountability, let's just cowboy up and run roughshod over the world as is our Manifest Right!

 

YEE-HA!!!

 

No, I'm talking about being realistic. How do you hold someone accountable when they're the biggest guy on the block? I'm not talking about right and wrong, I'm talking about simple issues of sovereignty. A nation can do whatever it wants, because it's sovereign.

 

It's not America's job to police the world. We do it because we feel compelled to, and it's in our best interests. It's not America's job to keep other nations happy. America doesn't have to do anything that isn't in America's best interest.

 

The same goes for any other country. France, Germany, Iran, North Korea, and even tiny Luxembourg all have one purpose--watch out for #1. That's what sovereign states are supposed to do.

 

Why were we able to hold the Nazis accountable? Because we invaded their country and defeated them militarily. Their nation wasn't able to maintain it's sovereignty. Until someone has the ability to do that to the US, there's no crying foul.

 

---

 

I got your authority to hold America accountable for it's actions right here. it's called my US citizenship and right to vote.

 

Dern right. You can exercise that right, and if you feel that America has done something wrong, then you vote against whoever is responsible. But it's not the job of other countries to hold America accountable.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Hey I don't want to fight about this either' date=' Champsguy.[/quote']

 

Okay, good. Sorry if I was too snippy. It was late last night when I read your post.

 

All I would like to see is some sort of ownership for America's track record which hasn't exactly been sparkling. To me, the diffciulty is the fact that America (and by America here I mean some sort of vast nebulous construct composed primarily of politicians and corporations and "special Interests" as opposed to by real people. I've been to the US many times and have found, surprise surprise, that most Americans (like most people everywhere) are decent, honest and hardworking.) It's not the people that I blame, not for a second. It's the politicians and concepts like Manifest Destiny or, more recently, Cheney's Blueprint for the 21st Century or the USA Patriot Act which are frigthening fascist manifestos and which heave been foisted on the citizenry by corrupt administrations.

 

I think you're watching a bit too much Michael Moore here, but okay. Personally, I don't buy the idea that politicians and administrations are seperable from the people they represent.

 

I think the difficulty here, and the thing that I'm trying to point out is that military power in no way equals moral authority or moral correctness.

 

That being said, I find a few of your comments to be revealing.

 

Quote: I find it remarkable that you believe such incredibly idiotic things. I also find it remarkable that anyone believes they have any authority to hold America accountable

 

Are you saying the concept of the "shining city" is idiotic? If so, I guess you'lll have to take the up with Ronald Regan cause he actually believed and tried to leaven America's military might with morality and humanity and decency. He acted from moral principles as best he could, not from military agendas.

 

Nope. I like Ronald Reagan. I thought the idea that military attacks in WWII are equivalent to terrorist actions is idiotic. I think that America should be a shining example for the rest of the world. But other countries should understand that America isn't their pet genie, ready to pop out of a bottle and grant their wishes at any moment.

 

Beyond that, it may (and apparently does) come as a huge surprise to you that America, while being a continent (or part of one) is not an island. America does not exist in a vaccuum. While the most powerful nation on Earth, militarily, America is still a part of the world community and the current administrations disastrously short sighted and arrogant approach to, and policy in, Iraq demonstrate this.

 

What I'm trying to convey to you here is that yes, Champsguy, actions do have consequences.

 

Do you think the terrorists just woke up one morning and thought "Hey, I'm gonna hate America!" No, they didn't. Their actions, while entirely reprehensible and horrendous, have not been spawned in a vaccuum, either. They've been spawned by a policy of covert and overt interference in other nations by the US for decades now (if you don't believe this maybe you should check out Alan Moore's "Brought to LIght" among others). A policy which embraces such morally worthy actions as assassination, mutual armament for mutual annihilition (remember the Iran/Iraq war back when Saddam was a favored pet?) and regional destabilization (virtually all of south Central America). But let's move on, this has all been covered millions of times before.

 

I know all about that stuff. We were in the middle of fighting the Cold War. Does America always do the absolute right thing? Nope. Can't. We're human. But America didn't just arm Saddam Hussein for the hell of it. There was a reason. It's one of those "lesser of two evils" things. When Godzilla fights Rodan, sometimes peoples' houses get stepped on. It sucks, but that's the way it is. Overall, the policies have had some bad fallout. But I'm not going to say that they weren't worth the cost. I'd rather us be fighting terrorists in Iraq right now than fighting the Soviet Union in Western Europe.

 

Let me give another example.

 

You're the mayor of the small hamlet of Townsville (no, not that Townsville--I just needed a name). You have to decide what the speed limit will be on Townsville's streets. You decide that residential streets will be 25 mph (that's about 40 kph, I believe), and on main streets it'll be 40 mph (60 kph). Okay? So one day, a crying mother comes into your office because her son was hit by a car. "If the speed limits were lower, my son would still be alive!" she sobs. So you lower the speed limits. People bitch and moan, because now getting to work takes twice as long. Then, one day, an old woman comes into your office, crying. "My husband died yesterday, because the ambulance was stuck in your stupid traffic jams, and he couldn't get to the hospital!"

 

We make life and death decisions all the time. Should airbags be standard in all vehicles? That would save lives. But some people are actually too short for airbags to help--they can even be a hazard if you're not tall enough.

 

Decisions have to be made, and yes, people will often die from those decisions. But that's unavoidable. That's what happens when you have power.

 

The final point I want to adress is your comment:

 

More people died in the firebombing of Dresden than did in the dropping of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

So this makes it okay? Beaucse not as many people died it's okay to target civilians? I think, rather, that both Dresden and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were horrible, ugly, miltary decisions. Were they valid? Given the world that resulted, I think so. Do they sit easily? No.

 

Yeah, they were hard choices. But we didn't have super-smart bombs back then. There just wasn't any other way.

 

In closing, I just want to reiterate that I am not, in fact, anti-American. I co-host a radio show every week with a good friend from Oklahoma and I have lots of friends and colleagues in the States who are all great, decent, people. And, as I stated at the top, my grievance isn't with them or with you. It's with the policy and the smug, cynical outlook held by smug, cynical, politicans that holds that America isn't accountable. That being said, this is my final word here, cause I don't want to fight about this either: what I am stressing here is that you can't hold yourself out as a moral paragon and act immorally. That's called hypocrisy.

 

Vigil

 

As I've said in an above post, no country is accountable unless somebody defeats them in armed conflict. That is, ultimately, the only way to deal with certain issues. What bothers me is this idea that many countries point fingers and blame America, and expect us to take them seriously. I've got more respect for Osama bin Laden than I do for Jacques Chirac. Yes, he murdered thousands of innocent civilians, but at least he didn't hand-wring at us and expect us to bow to his wishes. He at least understands the nature of political power and sovereignty. Of course, having respect for his honest assessment of the situation doesn't mean that we shouldn't blow the holy hell out of him.

[jackalope]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

It's not America's job to keep other nations happy. America doesn't have to do anything that isn't in America's best interest....Until someone has the ability to do that to the US' date=' there's no crying foul.[/quote']

 

So, then, you are saying that might does, in fact, make right.

 

I disagree. I don't believe might makes right. I am not sure what makes right, but I am certain that it is not might. And if no source of rightness can be found other than might, then rightness is a meaningless concept.

 

I think every nation on this planet has the right to criticize our actions, just as we have the same right to criticize theirs. And I think we have an obligation to listen to and consider that criticism. Because that is where I sense rightness coming from, from reasoned consensous and democratic decision.

 

If we will not listen simply because we cannot be forced to, we will be made to listen. Whether we are made to listen by terrorist blowing up our centers of finance, or slaughtering our children in schools, or ultimately by an alliance of nations who cannot bear us any longer, we will be made to listen.

 

History has taught every people that believed their might made them right that lesson. Only a fool thinks we are so powerful we cannot be humbled like that.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

So' date=' then, you [i']are[/i] saying that might does, in fact, make right.

 

I disagree. I don't believe might makes right. I am not sure what makes right, but I am certain that it is not might. And if no source of rightness can be found other than might, then rightness is a meaningless concept.

 

Being right comes from being right.

Might comes from might.

 

The two have no correlation.

 

Might means that you can do what you want. That's just the way it is. I'm not making any value judgment there.

 

The problem comes in when Person A believes he's doing right. Person B believes that Person A is wrong. But if Person A has 1000 tanks backing him up, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. All that matters is that Person A wins. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.

[Archangel Gabri]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

A very similar topic was raised on RPGnet recently, resulting in a great deal of thoughtful discussion and many interesting ideas:

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=153742

 

Thanks LL! That's good stuff.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Being right comes from being right.

Might comes from might.

 

The two have no correlation.

 

Might means that you can do what you want. That's just the way it is. I'm not making any value judgment there.

 

The problem comes in when Person A believes he's doing right. Person B believes that Person A is wrong. But if Person A has 1000 tanks backing him up, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. All that matters is that Person A wins. It's disingenuous to say otherwise.

 

That depends on the value of "matters". It won't _stop_ person A... (unless peron A can be convinced they're wrong, obv)

 

...but that doesn't make Person A right, and saying this can "matter". Because people aren't all about results.

[SKJAM!]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

An acceptable way of creating a "villain" with political overtones is to take a philisophical concept and twisting it so that the philosopher becomes dangerous.

 

For example, in the manga Shadow Star/Narutaru, one of the characters says that he's working towards a "fairer" society. "If you have one loaf of bread, and ten people, dividing that loaf evenly between all ten people means that none of them get enough food to survive. That's not fair, is it? Instead, someone has to decide how many people the loaf can feed, and get rid of the rest."

 

"And you're the one who decides?"

 

"It's only fair."

[Vigil]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I can honestly see Champsguy's point in al of this. What he's espousing is a rather hardcore utilitarianism and that's fine. It can work and given his premises I think the conclusins that he draws aren't unreasoanble. I don't agree with them but I think they follow, if you buy the premises.

 

The big problem here, and I think Jackalope nailed it, is one of moral relativism. Now, I'm not sure if you're all familiar with it but if you aren't it's the doctrine that says that we can't comment on another culture or moral system cause they aren't us and we aren't them and all things are "relative" so we can't pass any judgements. The problem with moral relativism is that it disticnctly doesn't work in the real world. In a sense it's what the UN tries to do, more or less unsuccessfully, everyday. And it doesn't work exactly for the reason that all cultures make judgements about tohers and that there seems to be a basic underlying human consensus of what is morally right and acceptable and what isn't. Nazi Germany is a perfect example of just such a moral outsider who was brought to heel by a coalition of "consensus" moral nations. If we were moral relativists, which we aren't, we would have been compelled to say that what the Nazi's is doing is right for their culture and so we can't interfere, and nor should we cause we can't fairly judge it.

 

But let me give you an example of what happens when a superpower which acts immorally confronts a superior moral but inferior military force. The superpower crumbles and collapses. How do I know this? What is my example. It's pretty basic really, cause that's exactly what happened in Ancient Rome when they confronted early Christianity. They tried purges, pogroms, genocide but the superior moral message of Christianity smashed Rome like a flimsy tin sword against a anvil. And they did it in a remarkable length of time and without a single military encounter.

 

I thinkt he above example is a poignant reminder of what can happenif a nation removes themselves from the moral structure and moral consequences of civilized nationhood.

 

Now the above is a bit extreme and the US hasn't, to date, done anything like that but I think the example is valid and history has borne it out. Even the US isn't powerful enough to go it alone against the bortherhood of moral nations and nor should they want to.

 

Vigil

[Archangel Gabri]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

But let me give you an example of what happens when a superpower which acts immorally confronts a superior moral but inferior military force. The superpower crumbles and collapses. How do I know this? What is my example. It's pretty basic really, cause that's exactly what happened in Ancient Rome when they confronted early Christianity. They tried purges, pogroms, genocide but the superior moral message of Christianity smashed Rome like a flimsy tin sword against a anvil. And they did it in a remarkable length of time and without a single military encounter.

Vigil

 

1) This is a very narrow, and entirely inadequate description of the reasons for the fall of Rome. The forces involved were far more complicated than the simple moral differences between Rome (which was a Christian Empire quite a while before it fell) and the innocent Christians. Also, the Empire didn't just wither away. The Byzantine empire lasted centuries after the fall of the Western Empire.

 

2) The fall of the "American Empire" is an interesting idea to explore in the context I originally described. I'm looking for some specific examples of political/ethical/moral dilemmas and situations that can really give my players some roleplaying meat to digest. It's supposed to be cathartic, so they need some pain to work with.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

I can honestly see Champsguy's point in al of this. What he's espousing is a rather hardcore utilitarianism and that's fine. It can work and given his premises I think the conclusins that he draws aren't unreasoanble. I don't agree with them but I think they follow, if you buy the premises.

 

...

 

Now the above is a bit extreme and the US hasn't, to date, done anything like that but I think the example is valid and history has borne it out. Even the US isn't powerful enough to go it alone against the bortherhood of moral nations and nor should they want to.

 

Vigil

 

You find me a brotherhood of moral nations and we'll talk.

 

My problem comes down to this: I don't trust the moral judgments of other nations. How many countries were raking in cold, hard cash by dealing with Saddam Hussein? Too many. How many of them were all too ready to continue sanctions so they could keep the money train rolling? Too many. Now, this doesn't say one thing about the morality of the decision to invade Iraq, but it does show you that the people opposing it weren't doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. As you can tell, I get quite irritated at the idea of some of these countries judging the US.

 

I don't trust those guys. At all. What is the UN doing in Darfur right now? Nothing. But France has a military. So does Germany. They could go in and stop that problem right now, but they don't.

 

Now, I don't think all nations are crooked. I think there are a handful of nations that act in what they consider are the best interests of the world. The United States acts as best it can, given the options available. This isn't always right (again, we can make mistakes), but the US is at least taking action. That's more than I can say for a lot of countries.

[Guest Champsguy]

Re: Avemgers + Politics

 

Now, to actually answer the question posed...

 

You could create superhumans that mirror the attitudes of various nations. I'm not really sure what kind of players you have, or what they'll enjoy, but the recent issues of the Authority have been somewhat interesting.

 

The fact is, the Authority have been behaving a whole lot like America right now. "We know better. We have the power to make changes. We're taking over because we can."

 

How about a group of superhumans who decided to take over the US occupation of Iraq?

 

"We can stop the insurgents. We've got enhanced senses to find them. If they give us any crap, we'll decimate their village. By the way, USA, your troops can all go home. Now. Your occupation is over."

 

That'll certainly get a reaction from the world.

 

Or maybe Iran decides to make Iraq a muslim state--using their state-sponsored superteam. They enforce muslim law without hesitation. They've got powerful mentalists to make sure you obey the law. All those US servicewomen? They're going to have to wear those headscarves. Or maybe that superteam decides that Islam needs to expand... into Europe or America.

 

North Korea might be farther along than anyone realized with their WMD projects. Except they aren't looking for a nuke to hit Tokyo. They're setting off a nuke to get themselves a Dr Manhattan.

 

What happens if you get a team like the Authority who rises up in America, except their political views are a little different? Maybe they listen to Rush Limbaugh (or a more extreme comic-book version of Limbaugh), or maybe they're pie-in-the-sky left wingers from Berkeley who don't understand the way the world works. Hell, you could just run the storyline where the Authority tries to take over the US, except think it through this time (ordering corporations to put X% of profits toward good deeds is all fine and good, but how are you gonna know? audit them?). Mind controlling demagogues are good. Is this guy really just persuasive, or is he a superhuman. When the former Klan leader starts having black people show up at his rallies, you know something is definitely wrong.

 

I'd stay away from certain established political groups (don't make Kwasi Mfume secretly an evil mastermind, nor Charleton Heston), but that's just me. You never know when you're going to touch on a particularly sore subject. But, if you know your players well, and you really feel like stirring up a hornet's nest...

 

Those morning-after abortion pills? Secretly mind control drugs. Those CIA experiments with LSD in the 60s never really ended. They just got better.

Voter registration fraud? Absolutely. Republicans are having police arrest black voters, and democrats are registering illegal immigrants from Kreblakistan. And dead people.

President Bush really does have secret ties to the Saudi royal family, and he knew that 9/11 was going to happen months in advance.

Bill Clinton arranged more murders than any president in history.

Both political parties are actually controlled by a secret organization ruled by Big Business (note: it's always capitalized).

 

Read a few Al Franken books, listen to Rush Limbaugh's show for a week, watch FoxNews and listen to MPR. Pretend that everything you've seen, read, or heard is all true. Even if they conflict, or it doesn't make sense. Every conspiracy theory is correct. We faked the moon landing. Communism actually works. The Holocaust never happened. Abraham Lincoln lived well past his assassination attempt, and owned slaves the whole time. He still does.

 

It all really depends on how far you want to go.