Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

[Gary]

Looking at the Champions Universe, it appears that there are many Master Villains that the Heroes around the world just aren't equipped to deal with such as Dr D, Takofanes, Tyrannon, and Menton. It seems that the reason one of them hasn't taken over already is because they are opposed by some of the other Master villains, either overtly or behind the scenes.

 

If the PCs somehow take down one of these monsters, would the CU be an even more dangerous place since the remaining master villains would have less opposition? Would Takofanes or Destroyer have already taken over the world if they were the sole Master Villain around?

[megaplayboy]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

If a PC team kicks the crap out of Holocaust, Firewing, and the Warlord, there's two consequences for other master villains:

1. there's slightly fewer megavillains to compete with

2. there's a group of people who work together who have become a major threat to all master villains

 

If a PC team thoroughly defeats Dr. D., they'd be the biggest thing ever--parades in their honor, keys to the city, Presidential citations, etc. There are a variety of possible MV reactions, the most dangerous of which is the "temporary alliance of necessity" to end the threat posed by the heroes.

 

(side note: in a more iron-agey setting, the existence of such a powerful team of superbeings would set off alarm bells in every world capital.)

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

In theory, perhaps. Short term, probably. Long term, probably not, as if the heroes can take one down, they've got a good shot at the others if the villains were so evenly matched.

 

For example, if they take down Destroyer, they should turn around and try to smack down VIPER and Menton hard at the earliest opportunity.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

In theory, perhaps. Short term, probably. Long term, probably not, as if the heroes can take one down, they've got a good shot at the others if the villains were so evenly matched.

 

For example, if they take down Destroyer, they should turn around and try to smack down VIPER and Menton hard at the earliest opportunity.

 

 

If the Heroes took down the Master Villain because they outfought him, that would be a good indication that they at least would have a fighting chance against the others.

 

If as more likely, they took down the MV due to sheer luck, or the acquisition of some sort of one shot Plot Device, it means that the other MVs would still be far superior to the heroes, and now they have one fewer rival to deal with.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

If you're going to go with the apparent current CU math of "1 master villain > almost any collection of heroes", then yeah. But then, the CU is pretty screwed regardless. I prefer my heroic worlds to be more about the heroes, and less about them stumbling around while the only thing saving the world is the infighting among the bad guys.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Getting into one of my problems with the CU as published...where are the heroes that keep those megavillains from, you know, winning?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Getting into one of my problems with the CU as published...where are the heroes that keep those megavillains from' date=' you know, winning?[/quote']

 

Waiting to be created by your players.

[Kristopher]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Waiting to be created by your players.

 

 

I've never thought much of that theory.

 

Most campaigns aren't going to feature the kind of characters that aren't glorified speedbumps if they draw the direct attention of the 1000+ point monsters that haunt the CU, and it shouldn't fall to the GM to complete a gaping hole in the campaign world that's presented in the products.

 

 

Of course, if it were up to me, there wouldn't be character write-ups along the lines of Doc D, Tacoface, and the like. Might keep the characters, but they wouldn't suffer from point-bloat or have the kind of VPPs that spark debates like those seen here too often -- "But Tacoface could win whenever he wanted to by casting a Megascaled AoE NND Does Body Attack!"

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

It's alternatively worth noting there are in fact guys like Tetsuronin and Rashindar floating around, and a lot of other people with unspecified point values who do things like fight Firewing off on their lonesome (like the English guy, Hyperion or something).

 

If you're running some street level based campaign, it's really not hard to note that such things are being handled by those types as far as things going on in the background.

 

*shrug* It seems to me that the Champs U in fact assumes there are actual high point heroes floating around that can band together and face the Master Villains, and that eventually your characters can be one of them, but that in the interim, you don't need to spaz about the world ending every other week.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

It's alternatively worth noting there are in fact guys like Tetsuronin and Rashindar floating around, and a lot of other people with unspecified point values who do things like fight Firewing off on their lonesome (like the English guy, Hyperion or something).

 

If you're running some street level based campaign, it's really not hard to note that such things are being handled by those types as far as things going on in the background.

 

*shrug* It seems to me that the Champs U in fact assumes there are actual high point heroes floating around that can band together and face the Master Villains, and that eventually your characters can be one of them, but that in the interim, you don't need to spaz about the world ending every other week.

 

Notable candidates include Hyperion and Albion of England, Ushas of India, the Wananmbi Man of Australia, and Celestar of Canada, amongst likely others.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Unless the 'tougher' heroes are a lot tougher than they appear to be, they stand pretty much no chance vs Destroyer or Takofanes. Or a few other master villains.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

I'd think that the lot of them group together with some supplementary help and thoughtful planning would in fact be able to pull something out, especially if a bunch of them are coming in at 900+ points.

 

You know, like how heroes in the comics beat the big worldsmashing villains.

[Justicebringer]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Given that the major MV's rarely make a direct appearence and when they do it usually takes the combined might of many hero's, teams and usually a few villians as well to fight them off, resulting in a few deaths before it's all said and done. So, having your team or your players go head to head unless they have years of experience probably won't happen that often, but with that said if your team did take out a major MV it would at the minimum raise a few eyebrows from the other remaining MVs.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

I'd think that the lot of them group together with some supplementary help and thoughtful planning would in fact be able to pull something out, especially if a bunch of them are coming in at 900+ points.

 

You know, like how heroes in the comics beat the big worldsmashing villains.

 

 

Given that the CU itself stated that the MVs were keeping each other in check (Dark Seraph and Dr Yin Wu helping against Takofanes, Menton plotting against Destroyer, Destroyer vs Viper, etc) it seems as if the heroes by themselves wouldn't stand a chance based on descriptions on what actually happened.

[OddHat]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Defeating a well played CKC Master Villain in direct combat will never happen with any but the most min-maxed (and rule bending) teams of 350 point heroes. Very few campaigns are going to last long enough to get you 800+ point heroes who could reasonably handle that kind of direct confrontation.

 

Personally, I see no reason not to run a campaign in the CU with 750+ point characters if you're in the mood for JLA style adventures. Players and GM's tend to treat the guidelines on campaign point limits as if they were hard limits. They're not even very good guidelines if your actually trying to simulate popular characters in almost any Heroic genre.

 

That said, there are reasons I don't run CU campaigns.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Given that the CU itself stated that the MVs were keeping each other in check (Dark Seraph and Dr Yin Wu helping against Takofanes, Menton plotting against Destroyer, Destroyer vs Viper, etc) it seems as if the heroes by themselves wouldn't stand a chance based on descriptions on what actually happened.

 

And Worldwide allows for the possibility of multiple 900+ to 1000+ heroes running around, so I don't find it so bleak personally.

 

Beyond that are things like CU noting that Destroyer in game, y'know, loses to heroes making the big gathered effort against him, when he himself is making the big gathered effort.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

And Worldwide allows for the possibility of multiple 900+ to 1000+ heroes running around, so I don't find it so bleak personally.

 

Beyond that are things like CU noting that Destroyer in game, y'know, loses to heroes making the big gathered effort against him, when he himself is making the big gathered effort.

 

 

If you mean forcing a *far* weaker 4th Edition Destroyer to temporarily retreat at the cost of the lives of 'dozens' of heroes and the destruction of Detroit, and then having Destroyer come back as the 2500+ pt monster that he is, counts as a 'defeat' of Destroyer.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

There is no canon evidence that Battle of Detroit Dr D was at 4e levels. We know he was not as powerful as currently. . . but not how much less.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

See, the funny thing is, since they kept the event in 5e, that seems to read that it happened with 5e stats, since there was not some Crisis of Infinite Stats where the Anti Stat Monitor changed everyone's stats as a specific plot point.

 

And in English, since Destroyer lost and ran away, yes, that counts as a defeat.

 

Thanks for the condescending though.

 

Destroyer also for it had to gather support villains, and bring outside forces to himself with him, he didn't just personally rampage.

 

He also had to follow long term planning to make it happen.

 

Your gripe is like complaining that the big summer multi title crossover event had some death. They have those, now and then.

 

And to note, yes, I know it's all part of a larger plan, but when that plan requires making sure everyone thinks yer dead so that you can lie in wait for years and years while you build resources, that also notes how seriously Destroyer takes the idea of people gathering to beat him down.

 

And at that, people have started to know he's still alive anywho, so that aspect of his plan? Kinda failed.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

You know, that kinda makes you wonder: if after killing 40 or so superheroes, he didn't think this instantly made the world open for conquest. . .

 

Makes you wonder whether most of those casualties, aside from Vanguard, were basic 350ers who might have been locally famous and well liked, but not that important in terms of global, or even national, strategic outlook. . .

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

See, the funny thing is, since they kept the event in 5e, that seems to read that it happened with 5e stats, since there was not some Crisis of Infinite Stats where the Anti Stat Monitor changed everyone's stats as a specific plot point.

 

And in English, since Destroyer lost and ran away, yes, that counts as a defeat.

 

Thanks for the condescending though.

 

Destroyer also for it had to gather support villains, and bring outside forces to himself with him, he didn't just personally rampage.

 

He also had to follow long term planning to make it happen.

 

Your gripe is like complaining that the big summer multi title crossover event had some death. They have those, now and then.

 

And to note, yes, I know it's all part of a larger plan, but when that plan requires making sure everyone thinks yer dead so that you can lie in wait for years and years while you build resources, that also notes how seriously Destroyer takes the idea of people gathering to beat him down.

 

And at that, people have started to know he's still alive anywho, so that aspect of his plan? Kinda failed.

 

Yeah, killing dozens of heroes as part of a deliberate plot to come back as a 2500+ pt monster qualifies as a 'defeat' in your book. At a time when he was personally much weaker.

 

And who the heck cares about 'personally rampaging'? Last I heard, minions, bases, and weapons all add to your power and all are legitimate tools to attack heroes with. Or are you not going to count Takofanes's 125 800 pt minions as part of his power?

[OddHat]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

"Ha! My Master Plan was to fight a massive battle, pretend to lose, then hide for several decades! I win! You all lose! I meant to do that! Defeat is victory! Losers! Bwahahahaha!"

-The brilliant Dr. Albert Zerstoiten, expressing the powerfully seductive philosophy that has made him a great leader of men.

 

It must be somewhere on the Evil Overlord list. No matter how profoundly you fail, declare victory and move on.

 

Works in every form of politics.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

You know, that kinda makes you wonder: if after killing 40 or so superheroes, he didn't think this instantly made the world open for conquest. . .

 

Makes you wonder whether most of those casualties, aside from Vanguard, were basic 350ers who might have been locally famous and well liked, but not that important in terms of global, or even national, strategic outlook. . .

 

 

He wasn't 2500+ pts back then...

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

"Ha! My Master Plan was to fight a massive battle, pretend to lose, then hide for several decades! I win! You all lose! I meant to do that! Defeat is victory! Losers! Bwahahahaha!"

-The brilliant Dr. Albert Zerstoiten, expressing the powerfully seductive philosophy that has made him a great leader of men.

 

It must be somewhere on the Evil Overlord list. No matter how profoundly you fail, declare victory and move on.

 

Works in every form of politics.

 

 

I'm afraid that the heroes can't take too many more of those 'victories' if they lose dozens of casualties each time.

[OddHat]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

I'm afraid that the heroes can't take too many more of those 'victories' if they lose dozens of casualties each time.

 

I've always been clear that I consider Destroyer and (even more so) Takofanes to be unplayable builds. I've used parts of the back stories, I wouldn't use the stats.

 

I don't think the Battle of Detroit works as a story, but it's canon, and my opinion isn't going to change it.