Using real world contriversy in Champions games

[Guest lucky]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

The game is set a little behind the current world and I thought she was still alive currently?

Depends how you define "life," I suppose. Currently, she is still hooked up to a functioning life-support apparatus. What I meant in my original post was this: given the fact that ms. Schiavo left instructions with her husband concerning what was to be done in the event of a traumatic accident, would this "hero" intervene? If ms. Schiavo's parents had heeded her wishes (as articulated by her husband), she'd have been in the ground a long time ago, making this PCs actions moot.

[Guest lucky]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Eh. The fetus creature doesn't make a meaningful statement bout abortion (imo).

You're kidding, yes? The entire premise of the fetus-creature is that FETUSES HAVE SOULS. That's a pretty f*cking meaningful statement (not to mention highly controversial). In fact, that belief pretty much underlines the entire religious argument against women having any kind of reproductive rights.

[nexus]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Depends how you define "life' date='" I suppose. Currently, she is still hooked up to a functioning life-support apparatus. What I meant in my original post was this: given the fact that ms. Schiavo left instructions with her husband concerning what was to be done in the event of a traumatic accident, would this "hero" intervene? If ms. Schiavo's parents had heeded her wishes (as articulated by her husband), she'd have been in the ground a long time ago, making this PCs actions moot.[/quote']

 

She has a feeding tube because she can't eat on her own, not a respirator or anything, but she'll survive for awhile without that as she'll have to starve to death/die od thirst since euthanasia is against the law. Most physcians think she won't feel anything since the relevant parts of her brain have liquified or are hopelessly damaged.

 

As I understand it, there's no direct proof she left such an order. No DNR papers or Living Will, that's whats causing the contraversy or at least allowing her parents to protest (with a whole bunch of other silly political stuff thrown in for flavor).

 

But in any event, she is still functionally alive and he has a treatment that could improve her condition back to normalacy (He realizes she'll probably suffer from extensive amnesia, of course). But the PC feels that this treatment wasn't available when (if) she made her choice and she might think differently now.

[nexus]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

You're kidding' date=' yes? The entire premise of the fetus-creature is that FETUSES HAVE SOULS. That's a pretty f*cking meaningful statement (not to mention highly controversial). In fact, that belief pretty much underlines the entire religious argument against women having any kind of reproductive rights.[/quote']

 

Yeah, pretty much. I just hosed the idea with my piss poor description of the situation. Basically, the entity is worshipped by feeding it the pain and death of human beings, thus for this situation to be worship fetuses would have be considered fully fledged human beings in the setting with developed souls that can feel pain and rage at their death.

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Here's one: Would you send your players into a civil war torn African nation to enforce a peace? Would you let them manage it? Do they have the power to do so without resorting to mass murder themselves?

 

I wouldn't run a campaign like that myself right now; I have attempted such things in the past, but it frustrates the players. Super Heroes need an Evil you can hit.

Why would there be a lack of Evil to hit in this campaign?

 

You'd have villains wanting to take over, non-player heroes assuming the player characters heroes are racists lording it over Africans and flying in to beat them up or at least make them look bad, global terrorists trying to set up infrastructure and recruit agents as they usually do, pirates and slavers and all the people the Phantom usually fights, foreign countries stirring up trouble and perhaps hiring mercenaries, illegal hunting, witch doctors good and bad, coup plotters, and just plain armed idiots.

 

You'd also be stretched out, moving food around, fending off disasters, negotiation things. Your high-powered characters could have lots of opportunities to be at a heroic disadvantage for the sake of protecting innocents.

 

What am I missing here?

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

PS: then discover a rich mine. That will give hope of making the country prosperous, and also call the vultures big time.

 

Foreigners will want to dominate that resource, whatever it is. Stir up the natives in the area to demand independence, subtly get some paybacks and preferably a lasting tribal feud going, call in some supers to protect the heroic people's independence movement and bingo! You've got a mine - and enough natives on the ground to act as a fig-leaf, not sharing the income with the rest of the nation. Unless the heroes win.

 

If I can see more or less endless opportunities for a positive, forward-looking game here, with plenty of combat, I'm sure you do too, and more than me. So what's the catch?

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Depends how you define "life' date='" I suppose. Currently, she is still hooked up to a functioning life-support apparatus.[/quote']

 

 

Not as of Friday the 18th, she's not.

[Guest lucky]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Not as of Friday the 18th' date=' she's not.[/quote']

Really? I've been hip-deep in a conference all weekend and completely missed the news. Thanks for the update. R.I.P. and all that.

[nexus]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Really? I've been hip-deep in a conference all weekend and completely missed the news. Thanks for the update. R.I.P. and all that.

 

Well, there's all sorts of motions in Congress (someone more political hip can give you the details) to get the feeding tube reinstalled. Its become a political game which means its going to potentially drag on forever while people use her for the latest weapon the culture war.

[Guest lucky]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

The entire premise of the fetus-creature is that FETUSES HAVE SOULS. That's a pretty fucking meaningful statement (not to mention highly controversial). In fact' date=' that belief pretty much underlines the entire religious argument against women having any kind of reproductive rights.[/quote']

Yeah' date=' pretty much. I just hosed the idea with my piss poor description of the situation. Basically, the entity is worshipped by feeding it the pain and death of human beings, thus for this situation to be worship fetuses would have be considered fully fledged human beings in the setting with developed souls that can feel pain and rage at their death.[/quote']

Wow. Well, that's a major real-world controversy in your campaign right there. Is the humanity of fetuses an established fact in your game world or is it being contested in way or another? How do your players feel about it?

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Well' date=' there's all sorts of motions in Congress (someone more political hip can give you the details) to get the feeding tube reinstalled. Its become a political game which means its going to potentially drag on forever while people use her for the latest weapon the culture war.[/quote']

 

 

Its too late for Congressional action to help. Remember, the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, and the courts have refused to side with the parents. At this point, Schaivo's case has been settled.

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Its too late for Congressional action to help. Remember' date=' the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, and the courts have refused to side with the parents. At this point, Schaivo's case has been settled.[/quote']

In the real world, she's doomed. Nothing can save her now.

 

But what if there was a hero? One who cared, and had the right abilities?

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

In the real world, she's doomed. Nothing can save her now,

 

But what if there was a hero? One who cared, and had the right abilities?

 

 

It can be argued that nothing could save her ten years ago when, because of complications of bulemia (from which she suffered), she had a heart attack, and during the course of that heart attack lost blood flow to her brain and suffered organic brain death, thus rendering her to a persistent vegetative state.

 

The Terri Schaivo her parents are "trying to save" has been gone for ten years, in my opinion. At this point, even if you healed the brain damage, would the "programming" remain encoded? I somehow doubt it.

[OddHat]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

You're kidding' date=' yes? The entire premise of the fetus-creature is that FETUSES HAVE SOULS. That's a pretty f*cking meaningful statement (not to mention highly controversial). In fact, that belief pretty much underlines the entire religious argument against women having any kind of reproductive rights.[/quote']

 

It settles the controversy for the players: In that world, souls now exist as a demonstrable fact, fetuses have them, and abortion is murder. There's no room for debate left. More importantly, there's nothing the players can do about the problem, unless you want the players to dedicate the rest of the campaign to hunting down abortionists or trying to change laws as a sub-plot. You can use that plot element in the game, but aside from making your world a bit more depressing, what exactly would be the point?

 

Unless you do want to role play Captain Pro-Life and his Fetus Defenders, in which case more power to you.

[OddHat]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

If I can see more or less endless opportunities for a positive' date=' forward-looking game here, with plenty of combat, I'm sure you do too, and more than me. So what's the catch?[/quote']

 

The catch is that you are going to be role-playing outsiders intervening in someone elses civil war, and unless you're running an unusual group you'll be role-playing rich Westerners intervening in a civil war among people with whom you have minimal ethnic or cultural connection. Unless they are a very high powered group, this will end badly.

 

However, your world your story. You can make it Kipling or Boroughs rather than Somalia or Vietnam, if that's how you choose to tell the story.

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

OddHat: "The catch is that you are going to be role-playing outsiders intervening in someone elses civil war, and unless you're running an unusual group you'll be role-playing rich Westerners intervening in a civil war among people with whom you have minimal ethnic or cultural connection. Unless they are a very high powered group, this will end badly."

 

I did have a high-powered group in mind - but I didn't say so, so now I will. This should not be attempted by half a dozen ninjas and Wolverine clones, and a blonde megalomaniac with a huge gun and oversized shoulder-pads.

 

For the people in the team who really are Westerners come to do good, I think the ideal character type is Supergirl (as she was in the Crisis of Infinite Earths). For a team of characters mostly on the level of Supergirl, and with that extremely high level of morality and personal pleasantness, I think this would be a long-term challenge with fantastic potential. What's going to challenge Supergirl and friends in the long run? But this would, it would be a continuing struggle - just what a gamemaster wants.

 

However, that is just my perspective.

 

OddHatt: "However, your world your story. You can make it Kipling or Boroughs rather than Somalia or Vietnam, if that's how you choose to tell the story."

 

I like Kipling, a whole lot.

 

However, to make this work, you can't be playing The Man Who Would Be King, as Rudyard Kipling would be the first to agree, you have to play something like Black Panther Returns To Wakanda (with friends).

 

I don't think you need more than one player character (or if need be a gamemaster-supplied native character) to convincingly say "I am not just here doing good on my summer vacation, this is my home". But you do need that one. (And more is better.) Without him or her I agree: there is a catch.

 

However, the reason I would not do it is not because of any catch in the game reality. After all, if I am the gamemaster, "reality" is just my best effort to imagine and communicate things fairly and in a structured and genre-appropriate way. Since I think Supergirl and friends, including the relevant Black Panther, can have a terrific (and hopeful) long-term struggle with this, that would be true in my world, though not in anybody else's world.

 

The reason I would not do it is in my first post - I don't do controversy. I've never seen the players I could sit around a table and do this with without it becoming a disaster, and I never expect to see them. One or two, sure, but a team, including people who may join later? No way. It's going to be a "racist!" issue, and just as with abortion and a lot of other real world issues I think superheroes could, should and inevitably would get involved in (at least as to advocating their views, the way Hollywood actors do on every topic in the news), I think it's not worth the grief.

 

Look at how bitter and nasty people get over these issues. It's quick to start, and slow to heal if it ever does. I'm convinced it's not worth it.

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

OddHat: "It settles the controversy for the players: In that world, souls now exist as a demonstrable fact, fetuses have them, and abortion is murder. There's no room for debate left."

 

This is one of the reasons why I would never do this in In Nomine, where it would be extremely relevant. The player character angels suddenly become able to notice abortion, and head to the Library of Heaven to get the party line on it. There they get the equivalent of a plaque summarising my opinion ("Pope John Paul II is right! Act accordingly!"), signed God.

 

What a disgusting thing for a gamemaster to do to players. How propagandistic. I would never do it.

 

(Hastily added in, because I've made myself misunderstood before): Nexus, this is not a shot at you. Far from it - anything but. I was just talking about my own limitations, particularly on not hammering the players or the player characters with direct statements effectively signed God - which is not what you were talking about.

 

OddHat: "More importantly, there's nothing the players can do about the problem, unless you want the players to dedicate the rest of the campaign to hunting down abortionists or trying to change laws as a sub-plot. You can use that plot element in the game, but aside from making your world a bit more depressing, what exactly would be the point?"

 

I think the player characters could do as much on this as on many other topics like democracy or freedom. I think it's just as worthwhile to have a player character now advocate a pro-life stance as it would be to have (in the appropriate era) your character opposed to the Negro slave trade, whether there were any immediate results or not.

 

I recently suggested something like this in a thread on Cold War Commie-Crushing heroes of the 1950s:- let the player characters meet Joe McCarthy, and easily form a true and negative opinion of him. Being real Cold War warriors not caught up in the corruption of the Red-baiting era puts them in a more heroic light, appropriate to heroes. That way they can have all the fun of blazing away at those rascally Reds, while enjoying even greater confidence that neither history nor their consciences will ever shame them. Having the heroes want to gripe occasionally about how loud-mouth Joe is at it again may be well worth it for the long run. Of course you don't have to do it that way, but I think you can.

 

The problem is not in having a pre-American Civil War character with Abolitionist views. That's good, for a shining hero. The reason not to do this, in my opinion, is the one I already gave: it's not worth the grief.

[OddHat]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

 

OddHat: "More importantly, there's nothing the players can do about the problem, unless you want the players to dedicate the rest of the campaign to hunting down abortionists or trying to change laws as a sub-plot. You can use that plot element in the game, but aside from making your world a bit more depressing, what exactly would be the point?"

 

I think the player characters could do as much on this as on many other topics like democracy or freedom. I think it's just as worthwhile to have a player character now advocate a pro-life stance as it would be to have (in the appropriate era) your character opposed to the Negro slave trade, whether there were any immediate results or not.

 

A Super Hero knows that a doctor is murdering children every day. He knows where the doctor is doing this. The doctor has no chance whatsoever of standing against the Super Hero.

 

If that "Hero" does not stop the doctor from his murder spree, law or no law, he is not a hero at all. Speaking out becomes a sad joke if you have given the characters absolute proof that in your world souls do exist, fetuses have them, and the souls are aware of what happens to the bodies they inhabit before birth. Speaking out is what people do who lack the power to stop something directly; being a Super Hero means using your power to do what is right, and in the scenario above "What is right" has been made crystal clear.

 

Note that I am not talking about the real world, or advocating any sort of violence. I am discussing the position in which the Game Master has put the characters if he states that, in his game world, Abortion is in fact murder.

 

And any super hero who did not physically act to stop the slave trade also would have had no right to be called a "hero".

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

One way or another, I think it's best that nobody notices anything controversial. No player character will ever happen across any intimations of Negroes in chains - no whips, no sales of men, women and children; and likewise there are no indications of abortion mills that any player character will ever notice.

 

"Colonel Hogan! I see not-thing, not-thing!"

 

Which works, and I think it is socially necessary. We're just people playing games after all.

 

Hence, I don't have a lot of big boasts I'd like to make about realism in comics, superhero games and so on.

[Lupus]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Schiavo: the feeding tube has been removed, but it's expected to take about two weeks for her to die.

 

Congress, meanwhile, is trying to pass a law that will allow the courts to intervene. So far, the courts have been saying it's not their place - the new law will MAKE it their place. Thus, it's not a retroactive law. Get around the whole ex post facto problem (as decisions of courts are automatically retroactive).

 

So it's still up in the air.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20050320/pl_nm/rights_schiavo_congress_dc

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Congress, meanwhile, is trying to pass a law that will allow the courts to intervene. So far, the courts have been saying it's not their place - the new law will MAKE it their place. Thus, it's not a retroactive law. Get around the whole ex post facto problem (as decisions of courts are automatically retroactive).

 

So it's still up in the air.

 

 

Problem is, such a law violates separation of powers and would thus be unconstitutional.

[Guest lucky]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

It settles the controversy for the players: In that world' date=' souls now exist as a demonstrable fact, fetuses have them, and abortion is murder. There's no room for debate left.[/quote']

Well, articulating these views in a campaign is to explicitly participate in the debate. The games we play don't take place in a vacuum: we, as players, live in the real world. We live surrounded by these issues and controversies and by using them in our games, we make political statements.

 

My initial point was just that by using this plot (of the fetus creature), the GM would be articulating a position in the abortion debate and legitimizing one particular point of view within the fictional world of their campaign. This is totally within the GM's pregrogative and I'm not trying to limit or deny the GM's rights vis-à-vis establishing fundamental premises. I'm just trying to point out something important that's happening here.

[David Blue]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Well, articulating these views in a campaign is to explicitly participate in the debate. The games we play don't take place in a vacuum: we, as players, live in the real world. We live surrounded by these issues and controversies and by using them in our games, we make political statements.

 

My initial point was just that by using this plot (of the fetus creature), the GM would be articulating a position in the abortion debate and legitimizing one particular point of view within the fictional world of their campaign. This is totally within the GM's pregrogative and I'm not trying to limit or deny the GM's rights vis-à-vis establishing fundamental premises. I'm just trying to point out something important that's happening here.

You can minimise any potential conflict as a player, though, rather than increasing it. I learned to do that long ago, and it was a good thing to learn.

 

Suppose you do learn for sure all the information in that scenario - you still don't have to draw any of the conclusions from it. It's not that you draw any different conclusions. You just blank. Rescuer, or your hero of choice, just has no thoughts on this topic at all, and consequently no inclination to do anything.

 

Souls can be handy in all sorts of ways, and their complete absence can be depressing. So a gamemaster may want to use them. It needn't mean anything.

 

A gamemaster may want to do a scene like in Miracleman, with Winter demonstrating nor only consciousness but considerable telepathic power in the womb. Again, this needn't mean anything. It's just a cool "bit".

 

The gamemaster may do various other scenarios that repeat the information, add to it, even line it up as the hospital scenario does. But again, the way I would see this as a player is: it doesn't mean anything, the gamemaster isn't making a point, they are just using things that are individually natural and plausible ideas. And so I would leave it there.

 

Or if I had any doubt, I would ask the gamemaster privately out of character: "Do you want me to draw any conclusions from X,Y and Z?" And if the answer isn't "yes I do," I would draw no conclusions. Zero, blank.

 

Doesn't matter if I am playing a character with INT 50 and compulsive curiosity: "Colonel Hogan! I see not-thing, not-thing!"

 

I've looked at similar information, heard the gamemaster's instructions that pro-choice was the right stance and my highly ethical angel should know that, and been perfectly happy to follow that guidance - actively glad to get it in fact. All I really need to know is, what suits the gamemaster?

 

I think it's more convenient for the gamemaster if the player is comfortable taking that attitude: enjoy the scenario and ask no questions. And follow any instructions provided.

[Lupus]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Problem is' date=' such a law violates separation of powers and would thus be unconstitutional.[/quote']

Not necessarily. If the court was saying 'we don't have jurisdiction', then their jurisdiction can be redefined by the legislature. To a certain extent, anyway. It's usually much easier to add to a court's jurisdiction than to take it away.

 

That said, adding too much could be unconstitutional -- SCOTUS might just rule that it damages the federal principle.

 

But on its face, it's not necessarily unconstitutional.

 

That said, I'm not arguing than it's RIGHT. Just that it might, in its own strange way, be legal. (Or at least not immediately illegal.)

[zornwil]

Re: Using real world contriversy in Champions games

 

Guys, the whole discussion on separation of powers and the feeding tube is all NGD, please leave it there.

 

As to the original question for the thread, I stay away from this sort of "heavy gray". I'll do an occasional Star Trek/Afternoon School Special sort of morality play if it demonstrates the world and pecularities to it as compared to ours or otherwise fleshes out the internal consistency/reality of the world. And the players have done their own outstanding job in taking what I've given them to debate about and so debating, with some major arguments over to what degree they as heroes should shape others' lives. I brought the heroes into a mission against Iran that was related to anti-terrorism, but, as with most things like this, it was very much a black-and-white situation at least in terms of the basic mission, as in this case Iran had a WMD program (dinosaurs...of course! (it was reported in the World Weekly News that Hussein was doing a dinosaur WMD program, so I reused that)) being run by a rogue Iranian leader.