Super Heroes and Killing

[Evil Toki]

All good points Neil, I think that is the difference we can make bewteen Superheroic roleplaying, and Superheroic games... The choice to deal with those harsh realities and explore them.

[wcw43921]

Originally posted by Yamo

Batman carried a gun and used it in the old books.

 

According to no less an authority than Bob Kane, in his book Batman And Me, Batman's early use of firearms was not well received:

 

In several early issues of Detective he even carried a gun. We had our first brush with censorship over Batman's use of a gun in Batman #1. In one story in this issue he had a machine gun mounted on his plane and used it to fight gigantic monsters. . .We didn't think anything was wrong with Batman carrying a gun because the Shadow used one. Readers found the use of a gun deplorable, however. "I goofed," Bill Finger recalled. "I had Batman use a gun to shoot a villain, and I was called on the carpet by Whit Ellsworth. He said, 'Never let us have Batman carry a gun again.' He was right." (Pg. 45)

 

He goes on to say that after that story DC imposed its own 'comics code' which forbade, among other things, killing villains.

 

It's not unheroic. It's a valid way to deal with unrepentent evil.

 

Actually--it isn't. Because if you can justify killing one person for their crimes--or whatever other "valid" reason you can conceive--why not ten persons? Or a hundred? Or a thousand? Or a millon? Or maybe even six million.

 

The Germans did not justify the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of the Jews, by saying "Because We Can!" although that was ultimately their reason for it. They presented an entire laundry list of crimes and conspiriacies that the Jews were supposedly responsible for, and that it was absolutely necessary to kill them in order to preserve the German way of life as interpreted and practiced by the Nazi leadership. Those who planned and carried out the Holocaust were as convinced of the rightness of their actions as the prosecutor who seeks the death penalty for a murder suspect--as the jury who votes to convict--as the same jury who votes to execute--as the governor who fails to act to preserve the convict's life--as the prison staff who straps the convict into the execution apparatus--as the politicians and pundits who argue that the convict's death was necessary to preserve our way of life.

 

But what if the suspect in question was falsely convicted? How right would our action to kill him be then? And even if he was guilty of murder, would we still be justified in taking his life, no matter how careful or just our deliberations? Because in the end we, our society, for our own carefully considered reasons, are making the same decision the murderer made, for his own carefully considered reasons--to end the life of another.

 

And if the murderer's decision to end another's life was wrong, no matter what his reasons or justifications, then how can our society's decision to end his life be right?

 

Legal or otherwise, the justification to end another's life comes down to one ultimate rationale--that the murderer, or our society (as interpreted by the law), for whatever reason, grants himself--or we grant ourselves--the power to do so. In other words, we kill Because We Can.

 

The reason we have laws, the reason we organize ourselves into a civilized society, is to make better lives for ourselves. How can we do that if we make the same decisions, if we lower ourselves to the level of those who seek to do us harm? Aren't we supposed to be better than that? Aren't Superheroes supposed to be better than that? After all, they represent the high ideal that tremendous physical power and prowess can be used to benefit the greater good for all, not just the selfish ends of one person or one group. Superheroes do not exert their powers for themselves and say, "Because I Can!" They exert their powers in the service of others and say, "Because It's The Right Thing To Do!" How can they serve this better ideal if they act the same as those who serve only their own ends--those who seek to do worse?

 

Finally, consider this--throughout our history, humanity has always operated under the premise that society would be better if we were to remove, by whatever means serve, the so-called "undesirables." Purges, pogroms, witch hunts, massacres, ethnic cleansings, lynchings, vigilante violence, holocausts, wars, crusades, jihads, and much much more are among the examples of ths mindset in horrendous effect.

 

Tell me something--has it ever worked?

 

Then maybe we need to try something different--something better.

[Yamo]

The Germans did not justify the Holocaust, the systematic extermination of the Jews, by saying "Because We Can!" although that was ultimately their reason for it....

 

BZZT

 

You lose.

 

Don't you know that the first person to bring up Hitler and the Nazis always loses? Especially when the subject is comic books.

 

[Prometheus]

Heroes don't kill because killing off sociopathic villians and choosing to ignore the justice system and/or societal morality makes them, by today's standards... sociopaths. But you only did it once, and he was a very bad man, and deserved it?

 

Better hope that other vigilante can make that distinction before he comes for you.

 

Besides, it's bad business.

[Yamo]

Heroes don't kill because killing off sociopathic villians and choosing to ignore the justice system and/or societal morality makes them, by today's standards... sociopaths.

 

But if they don't kill the villian and the villian kills again, the blood is on the so-called "heroes'" hands. Their weak-willed refusal to finish the job and smug rationaliztion for a lack of definitive action routinely spells doom for future innocent victims in the comics.

 

As one not even particularly extreme example, look at the second X-Men movie. Magneto kills a grand total of (I believe) three of the jailors during his prison break scene. That's three innocent human beings that wouldn't have died violent, unjust early deaths if only the X-Men had just had the guts to finish Magneto when they had the chance.

 

Maybe the families of the slain prison staff would have a different view of their supposed "superheroism?"

 

It's not logical or moral to assume that a superpowered murderer can be safely contained indefinitely by the authorities when common sense and years of accumulated comic storylines both dictate otherwise. "Heroes" that passively cling to that assumption anyway are more true murderers than ones that finish off their downed foes could ever be.

[Evil Toki]

Of course wolverine kills god knows how many people in the Mansion scene... so is that justified as well?

[Yamo]

Of course wolverine kills god knows how many people in the Mansion scene... so is that justified as well?

 

Of course. They were armed soldiers with deadly weapons that were attacking the home of his friends and the innocent children he felt obligated to protect.

 

What should he have done? Made them all tea?

[megaplayboy]

A few "sub-issues":

a. if Batman apprehends the Joker in Texas, knowing that he will not be found insane, and in fact face certain execution there, does his heroic code require him to 1) take the Joker back to Arkham, or 2) allow him to face justice and be executed in Texas(thus assisting in killing him)?

b. if a hero is in fact a law enforcement officer, authorized and trained in the use of lethal force, is it then "unheroic" for said hero to use lethal force as a last resort to protect the public?

c. at what point does simple practicality take precedence over morality--if shooting the bad guy stops him from nuking Gotham, how is it more moral to look for an alternative which may not guarantee the safety of citizens?

d. If a death penalty exists for supervillains, and the anti-killing heroes are the main way to apprehend supervillains, isn't it hypocritical for them to say "no one has the right to take a life" while handing the villains over for eventual execution?

[dbsousa]

Actually, Wolverine acted within state and federal law. When armed men enter your home without announcing themselves, you are not required to retreat, and are allowed to use deadly force.

 

This doesn't mean he is a hero for doing it, though...

[Karma]

A few points

 

Lets step back and take a long lok at some of the arguments.

1. The Joker keep escaping and since Bats don't kill him he's partaily responable for his crimes: The Joker keeps escaping and is kept alive for one actual reason: It allows repeat performances of Bats most famous Nemesis without having to stoop to some of the insane improbablilties that comics are famous for (If Bats was a killer every 'Joker' story would have required some way for the Joker to have survived the last 'killing' and would have had to have turned in DCs answer to Jason Voorhees in order to justify all his 'repeat performances'). Since Bats has a line that he won't cross however, the Joker and other villians are able to face their nemesis again without pulling out the improbabilities. If anything the Comics Code at least saved us from endless 'clones', doubles, resurrection machines, undead villians, (continue with list of 'back from the dead' reasons here).

 

2. Can people really be viewed as heroes if they act like serial murderers? What makes 'comic code' heroes so much more heroic is they don't take the 'easy option'. Lets not kid ourselves, putting a bullet in the head of every villian saves the heroes from a whole mess of headaches.

Still how do you think its going to make the public view them? I don't know about you guys but every time I hear about a police 'execution' of a perp or even a 'shootout with a knife wielding nutjob' I loose some more respect for the boys in blue. They're trained to use non-lethal force when possible, so when they resort to lethal force in situations where it seems unwarrented they seem somehow less heroic.

Also lets not mix words about what 'killer heroes' are. Self-rightous executioners. Do we cheer police who put a gun to the back of a perps head and kill him? No. Why? Because we all fear where that sort of power could take society. If superheroes start doing this should they be cheered or rightly feared. To me it smacks of what someone wrote above the 'I am above humanity and thus above human rules and laws' syndrome that Supervillians are famous for. I mean what makes a hero more capable of judging guilt (unless they have 'detect guilt, discriminatory' (Discrimnitory is important, most people feel guilty about something when faced with the 'authorities' and you want to make sure your not executing a jaywalker)) than 12 peers of the defendant. Yet 'killer heroes' seem to think that their powers give them this right, classic 'meta-human superiority complex'.

 

Speaking of 12 peers. Do you think Supervillians get Superjuries? Boy talk about grounds for mistrial. the only people that would be allowed on the jury would be known superheroes who are, by their very profession, publically known to have a bias against supercriminals. Heck think of trying to get an unbiased jury for Dr. Destroyer?

"Sir, are you from another planet with no knowledge of this ones super entities"

"Yes"

"No objection"

[zornwil]

As someone mentioned, a key ingredient in whether super-protagonists kill is the effectiveness of the penal system and how likely they are to come back anyway.

 

** WARNING TO X-CHAMPIONS PLAYERS (not sure if Lemming is the only one here?) - A COUPLE SPOILERS THOUGH NOT SERIOUS ONES BELOW, NOTHING PLOT-SHATTERING **

 

Speaking for my current game, the penal system is not particularly effective for the higher-level villains: Kingpin beats the system because he partially owns it (well he did, more on that in a moment); Bogeyman is nearly if not immortal so he can kill himself and come back; Bud Girl has powers the penal system couldn't quite counter even though it is highly developed against mutants; and others may have very powerful friends (like Magneto) who can orchestrate a jailbreak from outside. But most of my villains do stay in the pen and some reform. Bud Girl couldn't really be held but it was in part because she did work towards reform and is reformed, though it was unnaturally fast. Pterodactyl is reformed although she's still in prison. On the other hand Octal Fist gotten broken out (although now he's back in although at some point someone who is "interested" will get him out, probably for the last time) and has become prison-hardened and a mutant cause terrorist. Several got broken out during an orchestrated strike once.

 

As far as I can remember, only one of the heroes, Troll, deliberately killed a villain out of combat, and in that case it was a regular mortal guy who killed the character's mother just as they were reaching reapproachment after estrangement that essentially prevailed from birth. (The player wanted some tragedy so...). This same character however did plan to kill Kingpin (who had orchestrated the killing of his mother and had been imprisoned by the character's team but had wormed his way out of it) once he was forced (via a foolhardy teammate getting imprisoned) to deal with Kingpin again. Troll was spared the killing only because another, more veangeful (but with a much more compelling reason even) NPC killed Kingpin.

 

However, the team has been responsible for 2 in-combat deaths, one a mistake (combo of too much force and on top of that a high die roll) against a very fragile villain and the other a similar strike by the aforementioned character against a somewhat (but not that) fragile villain.

 

One character is distrustful of Troll as she's very upset about the killings (in character only of course). The other characters range are uncertain except for the calculating one who is essentially supporting Troll but with his "plausible deniability".

 

The death of Kingpin is recent and there's been no fallout, in large part since the team was not directly responsible. But one of the aforementioned villains died and another in a battle a while before. And nothing serious has come up - yet. There will be some repercussions (and I won't give that away) but the other issue, which the PCs don't know really although they might have figured out, is that the government LIKES when "heroic" mutants kill the "bad" mutants. It allows at least an influential segment of the public enough fear to keep the government in control, and it keeps some chips in the government's hand if they decide they need to trump something up and "control" the hero mutants. It also spares the legal and penal system some work. So an accidental death in combat (at least if that combat is for an obvious good cause) is pretty much ignored.

 

But careless or calculated killings by the heroes would definitely be out of bounds. It would cause the government to outlaw and hunt - and any mutant deemed a threat can be put away for life without a trial.

 

Hope this wasn't too long-winded.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A few points

 

Originally posted by Karma

Speaking of 12 peers. Do you think Supervillians get Superjuries? Boy talk about grounds for mistrial. the only people that would be allowed on the jury would be known superheroes who are, by their very profession, publically known to have a bias against supercriminals. Heck think of trying to get an unbiased jury for Dr. Destroyer?

"Jury of peers" doesn't mean only people who can do the same kind of things as a defendant, or murderous plumbers could only be tried by other plumbers. "Supervillain" is an occupation; not a social class. The term peer refers to fellow citizens; it has nothing to do with abilities or social standing. Do you think Leona Helmley was only tried by a jury of other hotel tycoons? Was OJ Simpson tried by a jury of retired professional quarterbacks?

 

Whether killing is valid is largely a factor of the type of campaign. In four-color campaigns such as I run, killing is extremely rare (although it does happen). I have entire villain teams with Code vs Killing. In a grittier game or in some circumstances I just can't see why superheroes (and villains) wouldn't kill. Even in the Justice League cartoon, when transported to 1943 and forced to fight Nazis, Superman killed German soldiers. Time of War = Different Rules Apply.

[wcw43921]

Originally posted by Yamo

BZZT

 

You lose.

 

Don't you know that the first person to bring up Hitler and the Nazis always loses? Especially when the subject is comic books.

 

 

 

Even when that person is making a valid point? I must have missed that one in the FAQ section.

 

My argument stands.

[Vanguard]

One of the reasons that the Joker is still around is storyline (as someone mentioned). If the hero's in the comics killed every villian they came across, there would be a severe lack of comics on the shelf. It's the same reason why, when you're watching a movie, the main character's don't do what they SHOULD in order to end things quick. If they just launched a LAW into the building the movie would be over in ten-minutes.

 

Now ... do I think hero's shouldn't kill? I think that's up to the individual hero. I know in our group the majority think killing is wrong and will avoid it as much as possible. While there is one that while he won't kill outright ... he doesn't have any qualms about it nor remorse.

 

Vanguard, is a Wolvering clone (and I'm proud of it) and it took one of the other characters in the game to convince him that killing the bad-guys the team ran across was bad. He wasn't a casual killer, but his school of thought was like some of the others on here. "If I let this person go, they're going to get out and kill or hurt other people and I can't let that happen." Did he think he was above the law? No .. in fact, he thought he was sacrificing his soul and would be forever damned because of what he was doing. But he thought it was best that he suffer and pay the consequences then others. Make him a bit self-righteous? Maybe. But after several conversations with one of his teammates, he agreed (albiet reluctantly) to go the "Three-Strikes" route.

 

As it was mentioned. "Hero's" killing is mainly based on Campaign setting and tone. If only a few of the villians out there are going to have the lethality that we see in the Joker and Punisher and such, then yeah, the players are actually going to go "Ya know .. we gotta stop this guy" and do what's neccessary.

 

My biggest concern (and in the current campaign I'm in, it's not much of a concern) is the GM that allows his players to be, for all intents and purposes, casual killers. If it comes to that, then you're not playing hero's. You're playing villians.

[ZootSoot]

Consequences are everything. A while back my team began investigating a series of brutal, sacrificial murders that turned out to be being committed by Talisman on behalf of Black Paladin (who ws trying to ressurect his sorceress lover).

 

My character has a big killing attack and a moderate code vs killing. Other members of the team have different backgrounds, but one had no code versus killing and another (my character's best friend) had made her earlier career murdering gang members (not that we knew that, it really wasn't why we made her team leader ). I missed the game where they made contact (team leader managed to get herself marked for sacrifice). Several NPC hroes were involved, two villains were banished to Hell. Talisman was captured by the PCs and transported to our base. Fear of Talisman is high, one character smashes her hands so they are useless. When she comes to she isn't frightened, but is looking for vengeance. Leader gives character with no code permission to kill her. Team brick (reformed gangbanger) pulls a Pilate and walks out of the room. Leader's sidekick PC (sorry, but sometimes . . .) tries to distract former Silver Avenger with Total CVK and Talisman is executed before he can intervene. Outrage (???) is so high that executioner is (sorta) drummed off team, leader's complicity is hidden from rest of team.

 

I'm back for next session, am given edited version about teammate turning killer. My best friend admits she has been having nightmares about Talisman. My character wonders if this is merely guilt, after all Talisman is a sorceress and "death may not be 'another country' for her as it is for us." During the course of a team meeting two other members of the team mention nightmares and my character (she's a little naive and open sometimes) accidentally spills beans that team leader is having them too and that she thinks this isn't normal nightmares and Talisman communicates suddenly to all those having the nightmares that they don't have to be sleeping . . .

 

My character is the most recent incarnation of a superhero with a lineage stretching back some 1800 years, it's mystically based (Korean) and involved each new incarnation to absorb a portion of the predecessor's soul (thus each incarnation has fragments of souls stretching back all those centuries); she doesn't know much about mystical matters, but has made the mystic contacts and so she consults those, getting confirmation that Talisman is not "dead."

 

Talisman now exists entirely on the Astral plane, unless she can find a host to reincarnate as, but on the Astral planes she is many times as powerful as before. Plus, she can possess those who, in my character's words "owe her a karmic debt" temporarily.

 

While I am getting this information Talisman's executioner, under her control, has captured all but the team leader (who has heroically gone into complete hiding;) ). I get captured trying to bring that information o the others. Team brick's mental powers are the wildcard that let us escape while Talisman through her puppet hunt for team leader. Eventually we all rendezvous, including her puppet who has , temporarily at least, won his freedom, at the headquarters of the Champions where, in addition to getting her advice people essentially confess to Witchcraft the degree of their involvement in murdering her sister. Witchcraft is upset, but confesses that she has tried to kill her sister in the past but was always thwarted, of course she had the advantage/disadvantage of knowing the consequences. She explains that to stop Talisman now, we have to kill her. This is difficult for a couple of reasons. First, we might be able to kill her when she possesses someone (which she has done with two of our characters and can probably do with two others, the ones without Mental Defenses), but we would have to do it before she got a second phase, because she can abandon a living puppet pretty much at will. Witchcraft can (and will) send us to the astral plane to confront Talisman, but since we are anchored in the material plane we will only have the equivalent of our normal powers while hers will be increased around ten-fold because she is fully resident on the astral plane.

 

Which is the information my naive, 19 year old heroine needs to come up with a desperate plan. She has no karmic debt towards Talisman, more importantly she carries the souls of around sixty previous incarnations of her character and she has no successor to absorb them if she dies. She explains her idea, and to her dismay Witchcraft tells her she is right, if she dies she will have vast power to confront Talisman on the astral plane.

 

Whole team freaks out about this plan, and eventually set up a situation where my character has a chance of being resurrected by an NPC hero who has (once) brought another character back from the dead. My character kills herself as Witchcraft sends the rest of the team to the Astral plane in a more conventional way.

 

When we confront Talisman we are cotinuously thrown off by her tactics, but my character stands firm against and Talisman decides that she is worrisome enough that she needs the others gone as distractions. She dismisses all (except one who managed to deflect the spell) back to the material plane, denmying them even knowledge of what transpires. Team leader freaks out and tries to kill herself to rejoin the fight, but is restrained. Eventually my character gets the upper hand and slays Talisman on the astral plane and uses her vast powers to assure she is truly destroyed. Witchcraft communicates my victory. The healer brings me back, but succumbs herself in doing so.

 

The team transforms itself. the leader decides she will not kill anymore and even turns herself in for the killings she has done (the cop in question refuses to arrest her). The executioner of Talisman decides that while killing in combat is forgivable , there is no way he will ever execute somene again. We dedicate ourselves to honoring the memory of the healer who died so that my character could live.

 

Lots of death, lots of consequences, none of it cut and dried. A rule is the worst way to deal with this question, instead make a continual source for role-playing, regardless of how each decision is reached.

[Trebuchet]

That's a cool story, Zoot. You and your gaming group are to be commended for some excellent role-playing.

[BlackSword]

Originally posted by Yamo

But if they don't kill the villian and the villian kills again, the blood is on the so-called "heroes'" hands. Their weak-willed refusal to finish the job and smug rationaliztion for a lack of definitive action routinely spells doom for future innocent victims in the comics.

 

 

I am a bit frightened by the idea that heroes are weak-willed because they choose not to kill. Any of the superheroes could kill anyone anytime they wanted. That is granted, but does that give them the right? What is the now tired phrase from spiderman, "With great power comes great responsibility." What is heroic about killing someone when you are more powerful then them?

 

There was another thread discussing using of lethal force in protecting ones private property in the NGD forums. Someone posted the WA law for use of lethal force by police officers and by citizens. The use of lethal force by police officers is much more limited.

 

Its been mentioned before, for the most part the escape of supervillains is contrived. Joker has been killed, and now he is back. Joker can break out of prisons and has killed hundreds he has never been put on death row. Do I see blood on Batman's hands because he's been 'weak-willed,' no; does he see blood on his hands, yes. The superheroes are extremely strong willed when it comes to not killing.

[Crimson Arrow]

Yes, really interesting plotline, Zoot.

 

As I see it there are a number of issues being discussed and that is causing a little confusion. Some of the posts are talking about the LEGALITY of killing in certain circumstances. I think we can leave that one as it's a technical question.

 

The more interesting (IMHO) issue, is WHETHER a character would kill.

 

1. The character goes out of his way to kill or even murder his opponents. This is Batman slipping into Arkham and poisoning the Joker's food (of course he won't do that). I don't think anyone can say that is heroic in any way shape or form, even if the Joker might escape and kill again. It might be justified/logical, but is not heroic. This does not necessarily mean that a character who did so could never be considered a hero. Executing someone is pretty much the same, as per Zoot's storyline.

 

2. The character puts people in situations where he can legitimately use lethal force (in the yes of the law). This covers your classic Punisher routines. "Hey it's the Punisher, let's all draw our illegal concealed weapons and let him mow us down." This might be legal (self-defence), but is morally grey (dark grey IMHO) and depending on the circumstances, you might not be able to rely on that defence. Again, not very heroic.

 

3. The character is willing to use lethal force against an opponent, but does not seek to provoke the foe to do so. This is very common in the real world. Police are trained to use their guns, but would rather the criminal surrendered. Using lethal force in those circumstances is not un-heroic by ORDINARY standards, but may be for superheroes, especially as they are more likely to have EFFECTIVE non-lethal methods at their disposal.

 

4. As 3, but the character is NOT willing to use lethal force, except in the direst of circumstances. An example of this is Captain America beheading Baron Blood. Cap would never normally dream of killing someone (in peacetime, at least). OK the Baron wasn't strictly alive, but...

 

5. The character will not kill. At all. Ever.

 

Even as I have been typing this, I see other possibilities and shades, eg the character who is in situation 4 and decides to kill, not because it is vital, but to prevent future deaths. Unlike 1, the use of lethal force is legal, BUT the character could have knocked out the villain instead.

 

At what point does a hero's refusal to kill one maniac and thereby indirectly causing a dozen innocents to die actually become LESS heroic than option 3 or 4? Does it ever? I think that someone can simultaneously be a good person for upholding his beliefs, while also being a bad person for ignoring the consequences of his actions (or inaction).

[Alibear]

Originally posted by RDU Neil

Posted by Klytus

 

 

That is utter crap. That is why I hate the false distinction between "normal damage" and "killing damage" in the game. They work well as far as building "blunt/broad attacks vs. piercing/focused" attacks... but the fact of the matter is... force is force. If you want to be less lethal, you use less force.

 

 

Me I agree with this up to a point. I always make sure normals are normal. 2-3pd.

 

When supers start wading into normals with 10d6N attacks they're will be deaths, injuries, disabilities etc.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Alibear

Me I agree with this up to a point. I always make sure normals are normal. 2-3pd.

 

When supers start wading into normals with 10d6N attacks they're will be deaths, injuries, disabilities etc.

 

Alibear... EXACTLY.

 

I always find it hypocritical that players who would never think of using a 3d6+1 KA on a normal... will no flinch from using a 10d6 normal attack. They call it being heroic, because they didn't use a KA.

 

Well... a 10d6 attack is not as LIKELY to kill a normal... it is a game mechanic justification... not an "in world" concept. That 10d6 blast is still likely to do 7-8 BODY after defenses, which is more than a 9mm bullet will do on average. "But it's not a killing attack" I hear so many people say. (Not my players, thank god.)

 

The fact, though, that Capt. America needs to do 10d6 or more in one attack, to put a normal "out of the fight" for sure. Therefore, Caps attack is a measure of lethal force... we are just saved by the writers from seeing the disabling, bleeding, broken body effects... therefore Cap is kept with "clean hands."

 

I've hated that element of comics since I was a child.

 

I don't role play superheroes. I role play "people with powers."

 

Sometimes the PCs do act in villainous ways... other times they are quite sacrificial.

 

There is no b&w... there is only the very, very gray of CHOICE.

 

Gaming is not comics and movies. It simulates elements of them... but it is it's own medium, a medium defined by character/player CHOICE. Trying to force role playing to conform to some false "genre standard" is limiting, and no kind of game I want to be a part of. Playing off of, or with those genres, fine... but enforcing them by fiat and morality arguments... no way.

[Insaniac99]

w00t Alright morning star, you got to it before i had to type it up! that is exactily what the good captain is doing, he is just knocking them aside and maybe breaking a few bones while doing it, but it is no where near what he could do...

[CBikle]

The whole "code vs. killing" thing doesn't really make sense in the real world , however it's a staple of the comics genre.

 

If you need to rationalize it to the players , you can always take this route:

 

The law turns a blind eye to the goings-on of superheroes and even works with them (even though most of them have secret id's) with the (implied or unsaid) understanding that there are certain lines super-heroes won't cross , and if they do , they'll help clean it up.

 

Politicians allow/encourage this because super-heroes are very popular and being anti-super-hero is not very popular with the voters.

 

If things get seriously out of hand , then the lauthorities will have to do things differently.

[Blue]

I likely shared this story before. It was a murder as a result of a character's poor choice of disadvantages.

 

For some unknown reason the player chose "Berserk when struck by falling debris". I wasn't picky back then because it was all about getting the player out there to do battle.

 

So naturally the character encounters someone on the street who taunts her. When one offers her a few bucks to go in the alley with him she punches him full bore. Now this was the player's fault, absolutely! Didn't pull punch or anything. So this brick kills the guy by virtue of a punch plus knockback! He goes THROUGH the wall.

 

Then unluck kicks in (I was deciding if cops were nearby). Gets TWO levels of unluck. So I say that debris falls. The player remembers his berserk and rolls... sure enough, the character flips out and begins to beat everyone in sight much the way they had hurt the first person. It was a massacre!

 

I'm not sure that player ever took a berserk again.

 

But they were hunted by the police, but never brought to trial. I sort of let that storyline drop, unfortunately. I'd love to do a trial now, if that player was still around.

[Mentor]

Character concept cannot be forgotten.

 

I have one PC who is a Power Armor/billionair/Air Force type. He had already "killed" 4 enemy fighters and presumably their pilots before his hero creer started. In Power Armor, some times the force is deadly on both sides. His only kill in his super career days was throwing a homicidal Wizard into the Nexus to Hell he had openned, destroying both the Wizard and the spell.

 

My Psychic character is an 880 year old former founder of the Knights Templar who after three or four Crusades, completely renounced killing under any and all circumstances. He will do things to the minds of villains that might send shivers up Dr D's spine, but he will not use deadly force deliberately.

 

As other posters have written, it just depends.

[RDU Neil]

Originally posted by Insaniac99

w00t Alright morning star, you got to it before i had to type it up! that is exactily what the good captain is doing, he is just knocking them aside and maybe breaking a few bones while doing it, but it is no where near what he could do...

 

I'm not saying it's the full force of what Cap "could" do... but I'm saying... a 6d6 attack will not keep a normal down in one punch on average.

 

5PD for a basically untrained, but been in a few fights, thug. (If a pro-boxer is an 8-10 PD, this makes sense for a street tough.)

 

21 Stun on average -5, equals 16 stun. Probably a Con Stun... but not unconscious. Unless Cap hits him when he is down... which we never see... the guy gets up in a few seconds... which we also never see. You never see Cap having to punch a thug twice.

 

So, to take out a 20 stun, 5 pd thug in one punch, so that at a minimum he is out for a full turn (which is still recovered and up again in under 30 seconds) Cap has to do 36 stun, minimum. That puts the thug at -11.

 

10d6 normal is 35 stun on average. So it has to be an above average roll on 10d6 to put a thug down in one shot. That is, on average 5 body damage done. HALF the thugs body in one shot.

 

That is the average of a 9mm bullet.

 

Now, you can put in a rule bending, lets keep Caps hands clean, mook rule... allowing the so called heroes to just take out thugs without even rolling, but that is script writing to maintain the illusion that violence is clean and safe.

 

Violence is not clean and safe. You punch a person hard enough to take them out in one shot... especially if you do it with a superdense metal object... you are severely injuring them, possibly in a life threatening manner.

 

A month in the hospital? Same damage as getting shot.

 

Why is one kind of damage "lethal" and the other "family friendsly?" Stupid writing/genre conventions that have no basis in reality, and in my opinion, severely detract from any kind of dramatic story telling... whether in the comics or an RPG.