Super Heroes and Killing

[RDU Neil]

>>>And if they're trained, dedicated agents of an organization out to conquer the world and kill lots of people, well, do the math. You only suffer serious consequences at 0 Body (bleeding, severe muscle and bone damage). If they're working for that kind of a cause, a 5 Body injury is getting off cheap.<<<

 

Ah so now we go from "killing is bad and immoral" to "they deserve to have broken bones and potentially disabling injuries."

 

Hey... I agree with you. What I disagree with is the people who make a moralist stance against "killing attacks" or "lethal force" but fail to realize that, in the middle of combat, a bullet or a punch that takes someone out in one shot... they both are potentially just as lethal. To say one is "the high ground" and the other "base and villainous" is just wrong headed.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Morningstar70

And if they're trained, dedicated agents of an organization out to conquer the world and kill lots of people, well, do the math. You only suffer serious consequences at 0 Body (bleeding, severe muscle and bone damage). If they're working for that kind of a cause, a 5 Body injury is getting off cheap.

I concur. A CvK in no way necessarily indicates your character is unwilling to cause serious injuries as long as those injuries are not life threatening or permanantly maiming. A broken arm or jaw is par for the course for thugs and agents fighting supers, although I think most superheroes would hesitate before permanently blinding someone.

 

In a short story I'm currently working on, my heroine Zl'f (who has a strong Code vs Killing) deliberately provokes a group of white slavers into attacking her with fists, knivers and automatic weapons, then decimates the entire gang with her bare hands in mere seconds. While no one actually died, one thug's pelvis was shattered, and the gang leader's spine was broken leaving him permanently paralyzed. My character then undergoes a severe crisis of conscience for her actions as judge, jury and executioner.

 

Eventually she works through it, but I don't think such events should ever be easy for a hero with CvK.

[Guest Champsguy]

Amen, Morningstar. If I were a Hydra agent, and I just saw a red, white, and blue blur come out and whop me into the land of birdies circling my head, even if I'm still conscious (sitting around with single digit Stun), I'm not gonna get up. Cap would have deterred me good from wanting to fight him anymore.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by 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.

 

Umm, it doesn't make sense in the real world where people don't have superpowers, I'm not sure it's that unrealistic once you add that element . . .

[Rerednaw]

Superheroes and killing?

 

Wouldn't you agree that having powers and abilities beyond that of normal ken doesn't make you a superHERO? It just makes you SUPER.

 

Then you must admit that the key here is being a hero. Typically held to a higher standard. They are what we aspire to be. The fact that they fly, shoot beams of whatever or can lift big things, etc...is only relevant as far as the super part of superhero goes.

 

So, playing a SuperHero, aka a Champion, implies by its very 4 color nature that you will not kill. You don't follow the rules because you have to, you do so because you believe.

 

Now if you are playing a different type of world/campaign/flawed hero, that's different. Anyone, normal or powered can kill, that doesn't make them a HERO. That just makes them a person who is like everybody else.

 

But then we were talking about SUPERHEROES here weren't we?

 

Cheers.

[Karma]

Re: Superheroes and killing?

 

Originally posted by Rerednaw

Wouldn't you agree that having powers and abilities beyond that of normal ken doesn't make you a superHERO? It just makes you SUPER.

 

Cheers.

 

Precisely. In RL we judge heroes by the number of lives they 'save' not the number they kill. In fact that's almost a definition of the differences. If someone gains publicity for killing people she is known as a criminal, a villian or a murderer. If someone gains publicity for saving people that person is considered a hero.

The headlines "Villian saves 10 from firey inferno" and "Hero kills 12 in senseless shooting" at first would not ring true and may in fact gain attention simply for thier incongruity (Wouldn't you want to know how someone could save 10 people and still be refered to as a villian?).

Not that this answers the original question (heroic police may need to shoot criminals in order to save people) but it goes to the heart of what should make a SUPER heroic, that being that they judge themselves by how many people they have helped, not how many they've killed (or even for that matter arrested).

"We saved Japan" should always trump "We beat Dr. Destroyer" in the minds of real heroes.

[SKJAM!]

SPOILERS FOR TRIGUN!

 

Mild spoilers for the anime series Trigun follow.

 

 

The main character, Vash the Stampede, has a Total Code vs. Killing, and he's just so damn good at combat that he's been able to coast on this for years despite the violent world he lives in. Thus, the early episodes are primarily comedic, and rather fluffy.

 

But there's a change of tone as enemies who can actually challenge him show up, and drive him ever closer to needing to make the "kill or allow killing" decision.

 

Indeed, it becomes apparent that the main villain's master plan specifically includes punishing Vash for having a "no killing" ethos, for trying to save both the butterfly and the spider.

 

The ending is somewhat ambiguous, and may not please all viewers. (But the anime was ending so they needed some kind of closure. The manga is ongoing.)

 

For what it's worth,

SKJAM!

"Love and Peace!"--Vash's favorite saying.

[American Valor]

In my opinion, killing should banned or accepted upon the basis of the game that you're running. If you've advertised a 4color game, then no. If you're running Dark Champions, of course. And if you're running a campaign in that grey area, ask yourself if the game is about heroes or paranormals. It's not the powers or the skills that make a hero. It's what they do with them. The Punisher kills. Fine. Batman doesn't. Fine. Team-ups between 4color characters and dark heroes have always been absurd to me but anything to make a buck. Ask yourself what you want to run and make sure that it jibes with what characters want to play and it makes for a great game.

Personal peeve-If you must kill, at least ROLEPLAY it!

[Cyberknight]

Code vs Killing (total) may make no sense in the 'real world', or even in the campaign world if the villians keep coming back again and again and again.

 

Then again, super-folk aren't exactly normal. God love 'em, normal folks just don't put on spandex (or Exoticum, or Whateverite) costumes and play in traffic

 

It makes no sense *to us*, the players / GM's / hecklers who have read the books and know that Real Villians Never Die. To the characters we play, however, CVK might make perfect sense. In the current campaign, the man in the Cyberknight armor is a Korean War veteran (yes, he really *is* that old). He spent four wonderful years eyebrow-deep in mud, freezing his (deleted) off, and wiping the blood and body parts of his friends off his equipment when things went wrong...Enough is enough. He's killed in the past, and he knows how it feels on both ends of the bullet. Will he take a life? No way. Been there, done that, the nightmares make me sweat on the t-shirt.

 

Paradoxically, he does support the death penalty, which might be another interesting discussion: Can you reconcile CVK and a justice system that has a Death Penalty statute ?

 

Cyberknight

*SIG GENERATOR - OFFLINE*

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Cyberknight

Paradoxically, he does support the death penalty, which might be another interesting discussion: Can you reconcile CVK and a justice system that has a Death Penalty statute ?

 

Cyberknight

*SIG GENERATOR - OFFLINE*

 

Sure, in fact among gritty heroes I'd expect that to be common. They won't kill because they believe vigilanteism has a limit, that they are not "entitled" to carry out a sentence - but society via the courts is fully entitled. And they easily often feel the same way about their peers and therefore attempt to stop them from carrying out any revenge or "preventative" killings. Most vigilantes (in the super-context) often operate on the belief that the law tolerates them specifically because they don't cross a line, and their way of life and public service is important enough to them fanatically avoid killing.

[ZootSoot]

Originally posted by zornwil

Sure, in fact among gritty heroes I'd expect that to be common. They won't kill because they believe vigilanteism has a limit, that they are not "entitled" to carry out a sentence - but society via the courts is fully entitled. And they easily often feel the same way about their peers and therefore attempt to stop them from carrying out any revenge or "preventative" killings. Most vigilantes (in the super-context) often operate on the belief that the law tolerates them specifically because they don't cross a line, and their way of life and public service is important enough to them fanatically avoid killing.

 

Hmm, is that a total CVK? I think that might work for a moderate or even a strong CVK, not sure it would for a total . . .

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Hmm, what about this guy:

 

Essentially, what kind of attitude is appropriate for some mystic hero who can resurrect people at will? Suddenly consequences aren't so consequential...

 

I mean, the guy rebuilt the house, resurrected the kid, *and* stopped the bad guy. +hostage takers suddenly lose a lot of leverage.

 

Just a thought.

[J4y]

It's The Background

 

People frustrated over the continual capture/escape cycle in Batman should be frustrated, however the blood of the people Joker kills when he escapes each time isn't on Batman's hands, it's on a very poorly conceptualized society/background. In Batman's universe him killing The Joker "unnecessarily" is against the law, the millions of people of Gotham want him instead to be imprisoned. Batman, being the hero that he is follows the law and hands him over to society as he's supposed to despite knowing full well he'll have to put his life on the line to protect the idiots of society who won't properly deal with The Joker and let him escape again and again to slaughter them. It's not Batman's fault he's living in a seriously screwed up society, he's doing the best that he can given the situation. Most people can put rediculously bad background, like a screwed up society as a device to keep The Joker in play, out of their mind, letting writers get away with some serious sillyness, to get on with the story as shown by The Matrix's ticket sales and it's utterly ludicrous "human battery" background.

[American Valor]

The whole point of Batman and the Joker is that he would love to kill the Joker! He, as a young boy, watched his parents die right before his eyes! He wants every criminal, every thug that stole his life and the lives of many others to pay! But he's a hero. He won't become the type of monster that he hunts. The moment that he does, he'll never stop. He'll be just another costumed psychopath, except his shtick wouldn't be birds, jokes, hats, cats, or riddles...his would be 'justice'.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by ZootSoot

Hmm, is that a total CVK? I think that might work for a moderate or even a strong CVK, not sure it would for a total . . .

 

I believe it CAN be so long as it's played as a total, where the character: a) never ever kilsl himself (again, he knows he should not even if he believes there are criminals society should execute); stops anyone else from doing so (same thing, he knows they're not the judge and jury); and not necessarily but best-playeed if c) he does everything in his power (investigation, even breaking them out of jail) where he realizes someone in going to be wrongly executed by the state (i.e., they are innocent or the case was purely circumstantial and he knows corruption or prejudice guided the verdict). I say the "c" option because he is total CVK, not total "I follow the law". If he does all 3 things above, he really in my book is being "total" about it. I think he could even do the first 2 if the villains he faces routinely have high defenses and are killers, since he won't use lethal force even against them if he thinks it might penetrate too deeply, AND he stops his teammates from doing so. That's a hard character to play.