Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

[Agent X]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I think we have to assume conditions were such that driving away the superheroes was plausible' date=' since that's obviously a big part of the "sample" we have. So the supervillain threat must have been minor at best.[/quote'] Heck, Mr. Incredible couldn't even get to his wedding on time because of Supervillain Activity.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

Heck' date=' Mr. Incredible couldn't even get to his wedding on time because of Supervillain Activity.[/quote']

 

Actually, only one was a supervillain. The first was stopping some ordinary criminals in a getaway car, and the second was a mugger. Only Bomb Voyage could really be considered a Supervillain...

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

It IS possible that the heroes had already' date=' in a way, won - supervillains were behind bars or had retired, or turned into heroes... since I can't accept that the villains are lower-powered [i']per se[/i]. I can accept that the heroes had already beaten them. In which case, getting rid of the heroes was prolly the next logical step. The 'age of superheroes' is a wondrous one, to be sure... but also a dangerous and turbulent one, so I can see authorities wanting things to return to a more normal standard.

 

But it's a bit odd that it took so long for a villain to rear his ugly head again.

 

I can buy it for a film. There may be more explanation, they didn't have time, eh. It's not a conceit I'd be likely to use, except at the end. After all, it's what many heroes say, yeah? 'When there is no more threat, I'll be happy to hang up my cape.'

 

Bad writers do have characters say that, but it's crap.

 

As to returning to a "normal" standard, in a world with Supers having some Supers turn criminal is normal. The only way to return to a no-Supers standard is to find out whatever made Supers possible in the first place and, if possible, get rid of it.

 

Personally I'd rather not jump through hoops fan-wanking a bad storytelling choice in an otherwise great story. Bird was going for the subtext; ordinary people fear and oppress extraordinary people. Vonnegut and lesser writers (looking down at you, Rand) have explored it using some of the same tropes for most of the century, back at least as far as Gladiator in 1930 (arguably the first modern Superhero story). That's fine as far as it goes, but some things that work as allegory just don't work on a literal level.

[Agent X]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

Actually' date=' only one was a supervillain. The first was stopping some ordinary criminals in a getaway car, and the second was a mugger. Only Bomb Voyage could really be considered a Supervillain...[/quote'] Actually, one supervillain qualifies for me using the words Supervillain Activity. I've seen the movie too.

[keithcurtis]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I like to go with the theory that Supervillainry had nearly been eradicated. Even Bomb Voyage was little more than a guy with some dynamite and a funny suit.

Look at it like the movie, "Shane". When the bad guys are more powerful, you need to have dangerous people on your side. Once the dangerous people elminate the bad guys, there's no need for them to hang around. In fact, people get leery of them.

If the premise is to work, we must assume that the major bad guys had all been dealt with and the people were looking forward to the "threat" of superheroes running around with Nothing To Do.

Basically, the America of the Incredibles had moved beyond the Wild West and was moving into the 20th Century. The particular events of the movie were only a stylistic way of showing the trend.

 

Keith "Come back, Shane! It's not the same without ya!" Curtis

[Agent X]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I like to go with the theory that Supervillainry had nearly been eradicated. Even Bomb Voyage was little more than a guy with some dynamite and a funny suit.

Look at it like the movie, "Shane". When the bad guys are more powerful, you need to have dangerous people on your side. Once the dangerous people elminate the bad guys, there's no need for them to hang around. In fact, people get leery of them.

If the premise is to work, we must assume that the major bad guys had all been dealt with and the people were looking forward to the "threat" of superheroes running around with Nothing To Do.

Basically, the America of the Incredibles had moved beyond the Wild West and was moving into the 20th Century. The particular events of the movie were only a stylistic way of showing the trend.

 

Keith "Come back, Shane! It's not the same without ya!" Curtis

The way I made it work is I just didn't dwell on it. Again, I like the movie.

 

Why I brought this up is because there are folks who were talking about building a campaign around this concept of lawsuits driving supers out of activity and they apparently hadn't considered how plausible that really is.

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

The way I made it work is I just didn't dwell on it. Again' date=' I like the movie[/b'].

 

Why I brought this up is because there are folks who were talking about building a campaign around this concept of lawsuits driving supers out of activity and they apparently hadn't considered how plausible that really is.

 

It's plausible until the first time a Supervillain blows up the financial district.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

The way I made it work is I just didn't dwell on it. Again' date=' I like the movie[/b'].

 

Why I brought this up is because there are folks who were talking about building a campaign around this concept of lawsuits driving supers out of activity and they apparently hadn't considered how plausible that really is.

 

No, it's not plausible.

 

Neither is superstrength, stretchy powers, or (standard super jab)...

 

 

It _feels_ right, however. It feels right that those bastards who sue at the drop of a hat would do that, they would bite the hand that punches supervillains out for them.

 

Indeed, given that volunteer firefighters get sued...

 

 

Incidently, I like this rationalization, if you have to have one:

 

The lawsuits began a bit after Buddy (that was his name, right?) got rejected. It took a while to sink in... and in that time supervillains still were under pressure from still active heroes. And it probably was a lull anyway.

 

And then he'd started his testing programs, and suddenly the greedy and/or gullible supervillains just started mysteriously vanishing... and the smart ones too, albeit for a different reason.

 

 

...at least for what it covers.

 

 

 

But honestly? It's not something that needs explaining. It's something that loses its power if it gets explained. Superman does not need to be a psionic, innate powers do not need to be linked to the same gene, and magic doesn't have to have rules, _it's magic_.

 

Superheroes disappeared. And it was the fault of stupid, greedy, ungrateful people, and ONLY their fault. And there's a good reason for why it worked... _and it doesn't matter what that reason was_.

[Agent X]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

No, it's not plausible.

 

Neither is superstrength, stretchy powers, or (standard super jab)...

 

 

It _feels_ right, however. It feels right that those bastards who sue at the drop of a hat would do that, they would bite the hand that punches supervillains out for them.

 

Indeed, given that volunteer firefighters get sued...

 

 

Incidently, I like this rationalization, if you have to have one:

 

The lawsuits began a bit after Buddy (that was his name, right?) got rejected. It took a while to sink in... and in that time supervillains still were under pressure from still active heroes. And it probably was a lull anyway.

 

And then he'd started his testing programs, and suddenly the greedy and/or gullible supervillains just started mysteriously vanishing... and the smart ones too, albeit for a different reason.

 

 

...at least for what it covers.

 

 

 

But honestly? It's not something that needs explaining. It's something that loses its power if it gets explained. Superman does not need to be a psionic, innate powers do not need to be linked to the same gene, and magic doesn't have to have rules, _it's magic_.

 

Superheroes disappeared. And it was the fault of stupid, greedy, ungrateful people, and ONLY their fault. And there's a good reason for why it worked... _and it doesn't matter what that reason was_.

Yes, that works well for a movie. I don't think it works well for a supers campaign.

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

But honestly? It's not something that needs explaining. It's something that loses its power if it gets explained. Superman does not need to be a psionic, innate powers do not need to be linked to the same gene, and magic doesn't have to have rules, _it's magic_.

 

Superheroes disappeared. And it was the fault of stupid, greedy, ungrateful people, and ONLY their fault. And there's a good reason for why it worked... _and it doesn't matter what that reason was_.

 

If you view Superhero stories as allegory, this is valid. Kurt Vonnegut would be right there with you.

 

My own game worlds and favorite Superhero fictions are not primarily allegorical; I do what I can to avoid forcing my players to suspend their disbelief past accepting the changes in physical laws needed to allow Supers. If you're telling stories that are not intended primarily as allegory, "lawsuits drove away supers" doesn't work.

[austenandrews]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I like to go with the theory that Supervillainry had nearly been eradicated. Even Bomb Voyage was little more than a guy with some dynamite and a funny suit.

Look at it like the movie, "Shane". When the bad guys are more powerful, you need to have dangerous people on your side. Once the dangerous people elminate the bad guys, there's no need for them to hang around. In fact, people get leery of them.

If the premise is to work, we must assume that the major bad guys had all been dealt with and the people were looking forward to the "threat" of superheroes running around with Nothing To Do.

Basically, the America of the Incredibles had moved beyond the Wild West and was moving into the 20th Century. The particular events of the movie were only a stylistic way of showing the trend.

 

Keith "Come back, Shane! It's not the same without ya!" Curtis

That's perfectly workable as far as I can see. If you look at what the heroes actually did, besides tangling with Syndrome and Bomb Voyage, they caught robbers in a getaway car, stopped a mugger, foiled a suicide, saved people from a burning building and rescued a cat from a tree. I see it as essentially a Golden Age setup, where "supervillains" were scarce. I don't think it's an accident that the film closes with an homage to the Mole Man, who's certainly the essence of a Silver Age bad guy. I don't recall if they pinned down specific years in the film, but it helps to think of the setting as very early in the "superhero timeline."

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

If you view Superhero stories as allegory, this is valid. Kurt Vonnegut would be right there with you.

 

My own game worlds and favorite Superhero fictions are not primarily allegorical; I do what I can to avoid forcing my players to suspend their disbelief past accepting the changes in physical laws needed to allow Supers. If you're telling stories that are not intended primarily as allegory, "lawsuits drove away supers" doesn't work.

 

It doesn't have to be pure allegory.

 

 

Look, obviously if what you prize above all is logic and internal consistency, then just including a setting detail that creates a certain 'feel' but has no really good explanation [revolving door justice, perhaps, or even CvK's] - but there's nothing _wrong_ with having something in there for feel.

 

 

And it won't work for a campaign where people don't like it. Nothing will. But if you _won't_ press for a "logical explanation", I don't see why it wouldn't work out.

[ThothAmon]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I think Edna quotes death dates for caped supers as late in the 1950's (58? 59?). That seems resonably consistent with a Golden Age setup (and the rise of McCarthyism) and makes 1973 the year for Syndromes rather cynical debut. The timelines seem to mirror real-world loss of innocence for people of a certain age group.

 

We don't see villains becuase they weren't there. Mr Incredibles 'Wall Of Fame' doesn't show much by way of supervillain activity. If we take him as 'The Man' you'd expect mention of a nemesis.

 

Having said my £0.02 worth I must agree with the allegory comments. 'The Incredibles' is telling an allegorical story rather than setting up a fully internally-consistent world.

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

It doesn't have to be pure allegory.

 

Which is why I used the word "primarily".

 

 

Look, obviously if what you prize above all is logic and internal consistency, then just including a setting detail that creates a certain 'feel' but has no really good explanation [revolving door justice, perhaps, or even CvK's] - but there's nothing _wrong_ with having something in there for feel.

 

 

And it won't work for a campaign where people don't like it. Nothing will. But if you _won't_ press for a "logical explanation", I don't see why it wouldn't work out.

 

The above is a restatement of points made in my own post, with a slight change in emphasis. As such, I don't particularly disagree with it.

 

My own stories are not primarily allegorical. The worlds where my characters live require minimal suspension of disbelief from the perspective of characters within the story. Neither the audience nor the character should ever be in a position where he has to ask "Why do these maniacs keep getting out of jail" or "Why is the government going after the heroes while ignoring the criminals, and why does the public accept it?" If these things do happen, there needs to be a reason from the point of view of the character beyond "It's a genre convention." The character does not know he's in a story; to him, there are no genre conventions, there's just the world and the way it works. For me to fully enjoy telling or viewing the story, that world needs to make sense.

 

If you like a different approach, groovy. Until and unless we game together, it's not an issue.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

Which is why I used the word "primarily".

 

 

 

 

The above is a restatement of points made in my own post, with a slight change in emphasis. As such, I don't particularly disagree with it.

 

My own stories are not primarily allegorical. The worlds where my characters live require minimal suspension of disbelief from the perspective of characters within the story. Neither the audience nor the character should ever be in a position where he has to ask "Why do these maniacs keep getting out of jail" or "Why is the government going after the heroes while ignoring the criminals, and why does the public accept it?" If these things do happen, there needs to be a reason from the point of view of the character beyond "It's a genre convention." The character does not know he's in a story; to him, there are no genre conventions, there's just the world and the way it works. For me to fully enjoy telling or viewing the story, that world needs to make sense.

 

If you like a different approach, groovy. Until and unless we game together, it's not an issue.

 

 

Well... I don't think the PC's are likely to ever know, exactly, why the retiring of superheroes wasn't a problem... just that it wasn't. I mean, whatever it was, it was probably something inobvious.

 

Unless the answer _is_ "What Supervillains? No, Superheroes weren't needed to defeat the costumed maniacs - they were just there to help. You know, doing their civic duty, and adding a sense of wonder to life...".

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

Well... I don't think the PC's are likely to ever know' date=' exactly, why the retiring of superheroes wasn't a problem... just that it wasn't. I mean, whatever it was, it was probably something inobvious.[/quote']

 

And if your players don't ask questions like that, it's not a problem in a campaign. Personally, the characters (not just the players) in my campaigns would be asking those questions.

 

Unless the answer _is_ "What Supervillains? No, Superheroes weren't needed to defeat the costumed maniacs - they were just there to help. You know, doing their civic duty, and adding a sense of wonder to life...".

 

Civic duty is an in character reason for Superheroing. I could see a character saying that. Adding a sense of wonder is a meta reason, and I would not want to see a player character cite it.

[Mentor]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

Takes 72 steps to get into a position to kill all the lawyers. The logistics alone are a nightmare.

 

I don't see Super Lawsuits as realistic at all in a world where Supervillains are common. I know we bend ourselves into pretzels to justify genre conventions we like, but this one is particularly idiotic. You can't deliver a summons to a Villain, and the heroes work is vital. The government trying to gain direct control over Supers, enticing or pressing them into military and police service, that may make some sense. Banning Superheroes while Supervillains are free to blow up American cities at will is the stuff of parody at best.

 

9/11 shows very clearly how deeply Americans actually care about the letter of the law and Civil Liberties when faced with a real threat; a Supers world is one where events like 9/11 happen every year or two at best. The amazing thing is that they maintain any kind of ecconomy or civil government at all.

 

EDIT: To clarify, America has done well. We have not sent all American Muslims into detainment camps or forced all American Muslims out of the military and civil service, both of which might have hapenned sixty years ago. We have made use of categories like "unlawful combatant" and waived restrictions on spying on our own citizens, and we may have resorted to torture with minimal public outcry. That's a very moderate response. If more buildings were falling every few months, I doubt we'd be nearly so restrained.

I think that the bottom line is that Americans want good laws, not no laws.

 

The Incredibles and Frozone were technically breaking the law when they reneged on the agreement to go awy and fought Syndrome's giant robot in the middle of downtown. I sincerly doubt that the applause and supporting comments on the part of the citizens were written to indicate a just under the surface support for Fascism or lawlessness. The government just blew it in the old days with bad decisions which need to be fixed.

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I think that the bottom line is that Americans want good laws, not no laws.

 

The Incredibles and Frozone were technically breaking the law when they reneged on the agreement to go awy and fought Syndrome's giant robot in the middle of downtown. I sincerly doubt that the applause and supporting comments on the part of the citizens were written to indicate a just under the surface support for Fascism or lawlessness. The government just blew it in the old days with bad decisions which need to be fixed.

 

Agreed on all points.

[austenandrews]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I had the feeling that lawsuits and public sentiment drove the superheroes into retirement, not actual laws. I could be misremembering.

[Southern Cross]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

I think you are misremembering, austenandrews.I guess I'll just have to watch my DVD of The Incredibles again...

[austenandrews]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

There was that whole weird thing about the damage caused by superheroes costing the government money, which I didn't quite follow. Did the government agree to cover damages and then revoke that support? That also doesn't make sense, given that agent's grumbling about how much it costs to relocate Mr. Incredible. Maybe they pulled back their support to only protecting the identities of ex-heroes, so no one could afford to be an active superhero anymore. Or something.

[Kristopher]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

If the cops can take you down without superpowered assistance' date=' you have no business calling yourself a supervillain.[/quote']

 

 

Really?

 

So there are no "real" supervillains who could be taken out by a SWAT sniper with a Barrett .50 a mile away under the right circumstances? (Maybe not killed, but knocked out by round to the head.)

 

Of course, I think I've made it clear in the past that I don't care much for the idea that the rest of the world consists of helpless bystanders in a world with superheroes and supervillains.

 

I can think of plenty of superhumans who are dangerous as hell, but who couldn't take that kind of hit. A lot of what allows the typical superhuman in the standard expression of the genre to stand up to well-armed, well-trained normals is our old friend, authorial fiat. Elite special forces can only hit the boardside of a barn, only use sound tactics, when the author's plot calls for it. Cops can't shoot anything, never take cover, and act like idiots in most superhero comics. There's nothing about Pheremone Girl (just made that up) that makes her able to stand up to cops except that the cops are never smart enough to get the gas masks out of the armory when the call comes in that Pheremone Girl is one of the four supercrooks robbing the 32nd National Savings and Loan downtown. Does that make Pheremone Girl useless as a supervillain, and not at all dangerous? I don't think so.

[csyphrett]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

There was that whole weird thing about the damage caused by superheroes costing the government money' date=' which I didn't quite follow. Did the government agree to cover damages and then revoke that support? That also doesn't make sense, given that agent's grumbling about how much it costs to relocate Mr. Incredible. Maybe they pulled back their support to only protecting the identities of ex-heroes, so no one could afford to be an active superhero anymore. Or something.[/quote']

 

I believe the government insured against heroic damages. When Mr. Incredible was sued, that led to countless other suits which forced the government to say we can't spend this much money any more, stop helping us.

 

I don't know if that's exactly right, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

I also think some of these heroes did a Mr. Incredible even though they were supposed to be retired. I do remember Gazerbeam was a hero rights activist before he disappeared. I can believe that he used his laser eyes to stop crimes when he could.

CES

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

As to returning to a "normal" standard' date=' in a world with Supers having some Supers turn criminal is normal. The only way to return to a no-Supers standard is to find out whatever made Supers possible in the first place and, if possible, get rid of it.[/quote']

Just for purposes or discussion: say that all superpowers come from one source, and someone finds a way to shut that source off. What about all the super-through-training masked heroes? Is Batman going to give up his war on crime just because Superman loses his powers? (I don't recall any reference to non-superpowered heroes in Incredibles, but they exist in most supers campaigns.) So you might have a return to Pulp-era masked heroes, but no true supers.

 

I believe the government insured against heroic damages. When Mr. Incredible was sued' date=' that led to countless other suits which forced the government to say we can't spend this much money any more, stop helping us.[/quote']

That's my memory as well.

 

IIRC, the movie seemed to imply that the majority of superhero work was preventing disasters, plane crashes, and the like. Plus, just having super-movement might have allowed them to get to the scene of "mundane" crimes much faster than the police. True supervillains may have been rare in the Incredibles universe.

 

But it does seem odd that the world has gotten along just fine for 20 years, but the minute the supers come out of hiding here comes the Underminer!

 

 

bigdamnhero

“As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?â€

[OddHat]

Re: Don't Buy Everything In a Good Story (Topic: Supers and the Law)

 

Just for purposes or discussion: say that all superpowers come from one source' date=' and someone finds a way to shut that source off. What about all the super-through-training masked heroes? Is Batman going to give up his war on crime just because Superman loses his powers? (I don't recall any reference to non-superpowered heroes in Incredibles, but they exist in most supers campaigns.) So you might have a return to Pulp-era masked heroes, but no true supers. [/quote']

 

That too. The Pulps and Comics (and most Heroic fiction) share the trope that private individuals acting independently are the answer to crime and public safety issues, and that institutions are at best ineffective if not out-and-out corrupt. It's great man theory on the small scale.

 

Still, it's my favorite genre, so I do what I can with it.