How would you have handled this (GMs)?

[CrosshairCollie]

Just caught myself thinking back to an old scenario that left a bad taste in my mouth. It was years ago, but still ...

 

The situation is that CLOWN (4th Edition) was doing their Live Action Role Play thing, with one of them as Mechanon and the rest as various Champions. Now, of course, the PCs came on like gangbusters into 'Mechanon' (who was Trump Knight, and he could take it), but this shredded his Aluminum Foil costume (for the record, that was the WORST series of perception rolls I'd ever seen in my life).

 

So, the rest of CLOWN unmasks and the fight starts in earnest. During the battle, Tag (formerly Obsidian) wallops the team brick (Avatar, who was an Avatar of Heng, an American-Indian War God) a good one, and stuns her. Her forcefield drops. Before Tag can follow up, Toe-Tapper, seeing what happened, tags a nearby inanimate object, which of course draws Tag's attention. Avatar proceeds to un-stun and strike the no-resistant-defense Toe Tapper with a killing attack, doing enough Body to reduce him to negatives.

 

At this point, the fight stops as CLOWN and most of the other PCs work on getting Toe Tapper to medical attention. Avatar is still spoiling for a fight and takes a potshot at whoever was getting Tapper clear.

 

Avatar has no statements for-or-against killing (though she did have a 'likes to fight'). The team voted for expulsion, and I started poking about on legal stuff to see precisely how that might have played out legally, given that CLOWN's no-serious-damage reputation is well-established, which one would think means that Avatar definitely used excessive force, particularly since Tapper saved her from recieving an AP pasting with a big chunk of her defenses down.

 

Oh, UN sanctioned team, by the by, and the fight was at the Washington Monument, IIRC. How badly would you have put the screws to Avvie?

[incrdbil]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Avatar proceeds to un-stun and strike the no-resistant-defense Toe Tapper with a killing attack, doing enough Body to reduce him to negatives.

 

Ok, was it well known that Toe Tapper had no resistant defenses? Did the character know quite well this attack would possibly kill Toe-Tapper, and this character had other attacks that would have sufficed to stop Toer-Tapper without being so lethal?

 

If the answer is yes--a form of reprimand and some form of suspension an and corrective trraining would be called forl. If it is questionable about the knowledge of the lack of resistant defenses, there may be room for doubt here. After all, even if it is Clown, they can be a bit inadvertantly dangerous, especially around something sensitive as a national monument. It still should get a reprimand from the UN sponsoring organization.

 

At this point, the fight stops as CLOWN and most of the other PCs work on getting Toe Tapper to medical attention. Avatar is still spoiling for a fight and takes a potshot at whoever was getting Tapper clear.

 

Was it a member of Clown getting Toe-Tapper away, or a team member?

 

Avatar has no statements for-or-against killing (though she did have a 'likes to fight').

 

Any other relavent psychological disadvantages? Anything established by roleplay of the personality not expressed as a psych that would have indicated the character couldn't stop fighting even during puases for medical evacuation?

 

 

The team voted for expulsion, and I started poking about on legal stuff to see precisely how that might have played out legally, given that CLOWN's no-serious-damage reputation is well-established, which one would think means that Avatar definitely used excessive force, particularly since Tapper saved her from recieving an AP pasting with a big chunk of her defenses down.

 

To avatars defense, being stunned could have been interpreted to be that the character didnt know about toe-tappers protective action. Was this possible?

 

Oh, UN sanctioned team, by the by, and the fight was at the Washington Monument, IIRC. How badly would you have put the screws to Avvie?

 

Seeking a bit more ino. Also, what actions/history to Avatars credit existed to perhaps allow a second chance? any? none?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Ok' date=' was it well known that Toe Tapper had no resistant defenses? Did the character know quite well this attack would possibly kill Toe-Tapper, and this character had other attacks that would have sufficed to stop Toer-Tapper without being so lethal?

 

He didn't have any obvious resistant defenses (no forcefield, no Obvious Focus armor), so the safe assumption would be that he didn't. The character's KA was only 2.5d6, she could do 14d6 N with a punch, 10d6 N with a lightning bolt. For what it's worth, I'm very certain that the PLAYER was aware of Tapper's soft-target status.

 

If the answer is yes--a form of reprimand and some form of suspension an and corrective trraining would be called forl. If it is questionable about the knowledge of the lack of resistant defenses, there may be room for doubt here. After all, even if it is Clown, they can be a bit inadvertantly dangerous, especially around something sensitive as a national monument. It still should get a reprimand from the UN sponsoring organization.

 

Sounds plausible.

 

 

Was it a member of Clown getting Toe-Tapper away, or a team member?

A CLOWN, but I forget which one. Probably Trump Knight.

 

 

 

Any other relavent psychological disadvantages? Anything established by roleplay of the personality not expressed as a psych that would have indicated the character couldn't stop fighting even during puases for medical evacuation?

 

Nothing in Psych Lims per se. The character was possessed by the God of War and Lightning when fights started (or during other stressors), and tended to go into 'must crush enemies' mode. During a training session, the god assumed that 'if they're your allies, they can take it' and Avatar stopped using the 'safety field' and was striking for real damage on teammates in a training exercise.

 

To avatars defense, being stunned could have been interpreted to be that the character didnt know about toe-tappers protective action. Was this possible?

 

Unlikely. I drew specific attention to Tapper reacting to Tag about to waylay Avatar, including a dramatic 'NO!' and him intentionally and repeatingly tagging the same object so there's no way he (Tag) could miss it. I know I said 'You can see Tapper repeatedly poking the garbage can, screaming 'YOU'RE IT! YOU'RE IT!!'.

 

Seeking a bit more ino. Also, what actions/history to Avatars credit existed to perhaps allow a second chance? any? none?

 

Actually ... Av's previous behavior was pretty violent. The main reason more body wasn't done in previous games was that most villains were, well, pretty damn tough. She recieved a light admonition a few games previous, when there had been a VIPER-Agent beatdown, but the VIPER agents were definitely shooting to kill (thus, MILD admonition).

[David Johnston]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Yeah, Avatar's player was being a jerk. But legally, that Avatar himself was recovering from being knocked silly would be a good defense against the attempted murder charge that could be filed against him

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

He didn't have any obvious resistant defenses (no forcefield' date=' no Obvious Focus armor), so the safe assumption would be that he didn't. The character's KA was only 2.5d6, she could do 14d6 N with a punch, 10d6 N with a lightning bolt. For what it's worth, I'm very certain that the PLAYER was aware of Tapper's soft-target status.[/quote']

 

I question whether it's appropriate for characters to assume big defenses with no evidence of same anyway.

 

Actually ... Av's previous behavior was pretty violent. The main reason more body wasn't done in previous games was that most villains were' date=' well, pretty damn tough. She recieved a light admonition a few games previous, when there had been a VIPER-Agent beatdown, but the VIPER agents were definitely shooting to kill (thus, MILD admonition).[/quote']

 

The fact the character has used this level of violence consistently with no repercussions would leave me reluctant to penalize it heavily from this one instance. I think the expectations of what types of attacks are acceptable under what circumstances needs to be set from the outset, and adhered to consistently. If the characters always hit full-force from the start of any combat, and play that way for several months with no suggestions of any real negative implications, then suddenly get a huge penalty slapped on them for doing what they've basically always done, that sits poorly with me.

[actingkeith]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Nothing in Psych Lims per se. The character was possessed by the God of War and Lightning when fights started (or during other stressors)' date=' and tended to go into 'must crush enemies' mode. During a training session, the god assumed that 'if they're your allies, they can take it' and Avatar stopped using the 'safety field' and was striking for real damage on teammates in a training exercise.[/quote']What were the other PCs responses to being attacked in a training scenario?

 

What was the character's response to what she'd done after the 'possession' wore off?

 

More importantly, what do the other players and the particular player feel about the in-character action? The reason that that's important is that if the OOC folks are ok with whatever's happening in-game, then don't change.

 

It's the GM's job to define the mores and acceptible behavior within the game... it's the players' job to make sure that their characters either abide by the GM's guidelines or that they suffer the consequences for failing to do so.

 

Here's what I'd do... I'd ask the player if he/she realizes that the character is behaving in a wrong/bad/crappy/evil way. If the player says that they know, and that it's part of the crap that the character needs to work through... then that's a good thing, and the character should suffer for their mistakes and be allowed to grow.

 

There are a million examples, but it comes down to the question of whether it's an IC or an OOC 'problem.'

 

If it's an IC problem... then it's not really a problem... it's an opportunity to role play, and should be exploited to the fullest.

 

If it's an OOC problem, then it's a real problem.

 

Peace,

 

-keith

[Chimpira]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Running into something similiar in the game I am currently playing in. I am letting another GM run a game in my game world and I am finally getting a chance to play my Captain Marvel type character, Guardian. Two of the players are playing characters that are pretty violent. They deal out scads of damage to soft targets and have a total disregard of innocent bystanders. I had had enough when we went to stomp out this terrorist cell and one of the characters was going at them with full strength (these were all normals, by the way) I dressed him down and told him that I would personally take him out if he did not toe the line. The quick answer was "Hey, I don't have a code vs. Killing." My answer was "Neither do I, but I see death as the last recourse to a situation that has spiraled past my ability to simply contain it. The last act of a very desperate man. It is not an option that I would take simply because someone has me down and beaten, or humiliated or are simply slowing me down. Far more than my life , or yours for that matter, needs to be on the line before that is even an option. When that time comes I will tell you but for now and the forseeable future. You. Will. Show. Restraint."

 

The two players generally do not pull this sort of stuff in my game but since the new GM has not cracked down on them when they made their characters, they are running with it. In general, I do not have a problem with death and killing in roleplaying games and my Shadowrun game is downright deadly, but I believe into adhering to the genre and a mainstream Champions Universe game is not an Iron Age game. If you kill, there should be reprecussions from this that do not just affect your player but the whole group as well. Excessive force as a usual way of doing business should come back to bite the players in the butt.

[Black Omega]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I'm with incrdbil on this. Some punishment but not expulsion.

 

1. No one was killed.

2. The character evidently had a history of violent activity without getting into trouble.

3. Barring reason to believe otherwise, a name villain part of a notorious group can be expected to have decent defenses. Unless the point of the game is the heros always having to use much less than their full attacks against villains until they know the villain can take it. That said, I also consider Avatar's choice of attacks suspicious, and lacking in honor after the help given by TT.

4. It's CLOWN. Ok, that's personal bias, I don't like CLOWN a bit.

 

This sort of thing can be fun to play out, as long as the players are up for it. Even Wolverine reined himself in around the X-Men for the most part. I'm curious to know what the other players thought of what happened. They voted for expulsion, but were other options considered?

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Sounds like you and Avatar's player may not be on the same page regarding degrees of campaign lethality.

 

Also, nothing good ever comes from using CLOWN. Somehow they just always seem to bring out the worst in players and GMs.

[Sketchpad]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Have her have to do community service ... maybe at a prison or something

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

What were the other PCs responses to being attacked in a training scenario?

General annoyance, but nobody actually got hurt.

 

What was the character's response to what she'd done after the 'possession' wore off?

 

None. The character has no memory during the possession time ... and even then, there was just kind of an 'eh' reaction, in the 'it wasn't my fault' sort of way.

 

More importantly, what do the other players and the particular player feel about the in-character action? The reason that that's important is that if the OOC folks are ok with whatever's happening in-game, then don't change.

I honestly think that the player was just frustrated with the CLOWN fight because, well, they can be pretty annoying. He has demonstrated taking the results of random die rolls a little too personally ("I'm just gonna take these damn dice home and ****ing burn them" is a common line). I'll admit, he was probably venting, also, as he does say he games a lot for 'catharsis'.

 

He (female character, male player), IIRC, was trying to claim that he was just playing the character, and I was saying, yes, perhaps you were, but you just committed, at the very least, aggravated assault, and you're on a UN team and that was overkill. I recall a long discussion (DM + rest of team against him) about the concept of 'appropriate force' as it pertains to Law Enforcement, including the 'cops can't shoot unless they think their life is in danger, and not only was it obvious that your life wasn't in danger (Reputation/Knowledge rolls made), you shoved a spear into the liver of the guy who kept you from getting hurt.'

 

I don't THINK anybody at the table was taking anything OOCly that was going on ICly.

 

It's the GM's job to define the mores and acceptible behavior within the game... it's the players' job to make sure that their characters either abide by the GM's guidelines or that they suffer the consequences for failing to do so.

 

Here's what I'd do... I'd ask the player if he/she realizes that the character is behaving in a wrong/bad/crappy/evil way. If the player says that they know, and that it's part of the crap that the character needs to work through... then that's a good thing, and the character should suffer for their mistakes and be allowed to grow.

 

It wound up not mattering, since the player abandoned the character when the group decided to hand her over to the authorities (aka Stronghold) and the vote was looking very much like expulsion. I considered bringing the character back as a villain (a member of the Totems from Horror Enemies), but never really got the opportunity.

 

There are a million examples, but it comes down to the question of whether it's an IC or an OOC 'problem.'

 

If it's an IC problem... then it's not really a problem... it's an opportunity to role play, and should be exploited to the fullest.

 

If it's an OOC problem, then it's a real problem.

 

Well said.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I'm with incrdbil on this. Some punishment but not expulsion.

 

1. No one was killed.

2. The character evidently had a history of violent activity without getting into trouble.

3. Barring reason to believe otherwise, a name villain part of a notorious group can be expected to have decent defenses. Unless the point of the game is the heros always having to use much less than their full attacks against villains until they know the villain can take it. That said, I also consider Avatar's choice of attacks suspicious, and lacking in honor after the help given by TT.

4. It's CLOWN. Ok, that's personal bias, I don't like CLOWN a bit.

 

1. This is true. This is probably why there was an actual hearing, rather than the rest of the team simply converging on Avatar and beating the snot out of her.

2. Not quite ... she was admonished whenever she inflicted Body damage on sentient beings, but it had previously been a 'lethal force vs lethal force', not 'lethal force vs cream pie'.

3. Yeah, the old 'native American honorable savage' sort of thing had come up more than once, but it was never really defined to my satisfaction (and wasn't a Psych Lim at any rate). The line of thought seemed to be 'a worthy foe can take my attacks, and if they can't, they aren't worthy foes' ... which somehow doesn't add up in my brain.

4. I like to bring them in when I need to do something lighthearted, especially after something dark and angst-ridden. Them or Foxbat.

 

This sort of thing can be fun to play out, as long as the players are up for it. Even Wolverine reined himself in around the X-Men for the most part. I'm curious to know what the other players thought of what happened. They voted for expulsion, but were other options considered?

 

After the PCs 'tribunal' convened, I sat back and just watched and took notes and fielded game-world questions. Two of the other PCs had 20 point Codes, and while Avatar was allowed to defend herself, she didn't get a vote ... and it was a four man group. Other things were brought up by the 4th member, but the government sanctioning was a bit of a sticking point, since that was, basically, a cop using ,knowingly, excessive force, which is pretty much a 'you're kicked off the force' from what I know of police procedings.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Two other thoughts:

 

1 The UN bureaucrat who recruited an avatar of a war god onto their peace-keeping force, is probably looking for a job in the private sector.

 

2 Realistically, CLOWN's "Mechanon Goes To Washington" ruse, probably would've created a lot of chaos with police and other emergency services and led to at least a few incidental deaths/injuries related to that chaos.

 

As a GM, you can always hand-wave and say "None of that stuff happens" (kind of like how the Hulk's rampages used to never have any loss-of-life consequences), but in that case, it almost behooves you to do the same thing with the PC's excessive force.

[actingkeith]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Here's the thing you said that stuck with me in your last series of comments... that the player plays (and plays violently) for 'catharsis'

 

That's a bad sign.

 

I think that what you've done in-character is probably the most appropriate response. The more that you can make your game world repsond like the real world would - given the weird circumstances of the super world - the more the players will be able to relate.

 

It is especially appropriate since the character has black-outs. Such a character is not the sort of liability that a governmental organization can afford unless there's a HUGE benefit that can be demonstrated to the voters.

 

I think you're handling what's going on quite well. Try to stay realistic with your (and everyone else's) expectations, and you'll be fine.

 

Peace,

 

-keith

[David Johnston]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

 

2 Realistically, CLOWN's "Mechanon Goes To Washington" ruse, probably would've created a lot of chaos with police and other emergency services and led to at least a few incidental deaths/injuries related to that chaos.

 

 

Some chaos, yes, but it's not that likely that deaths would have resulted. After all, "Mechanon" is being fought by the "Defenders" so true mass panic seems unlikely.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Two other thoughts:

 

1 The UN bureaucrat who recruited an avatar of a war god onto their peace-keeping force, is probably looking for a job in the private sector.

 

2 Realistically, CLOWN's "Mechanon Goes To Washington" ruse, probably would've created a lot of chaos with police and other emergency services and led to at least a few incidental deaths/injuries related to that chaos.

 

As a GM, you can always hand-wave and say "None of that stuff happens" (kind of like how the Hulk's rampages used to never have any loss-of-life consequences), but in that case, it almost behooves you to do the same thing with the PC's excessive force.

 

1. Point, although Thor was an Avenger for a whole buncha years ... and besides, technically Athena was a god(dess) of war and she'd show a lot of restraint. We just wound up with Ares with PMS.

 

2. I generally don't do too much in the way of accidental deaths, in terms of crowd tramplings. The police had the place cordoned off and all that kind of crowd-control, keep-the-normals-away-from-the-carnage stuff.

[Lucius]

How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Let me get this straight:

 

The character attacked someone who was carrying away a wounded person?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is trying to see both sides of this.

[incrdbil]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

He didn't have any obvious resistant defenses (no forcefield, no Obvious Focus armor), so the safe assumption would be that he didn't. The character's KA was only 2.5d6, she could do 14d6 N with a punch, 10d6 N with a lightning bolt. For what it's worth, I'm very certain that the PLAYER was aware of Tapper's soft-target status.

 

Thank you for the information. I'm assuming the team had encountered Clown before, but, even so, they were UN sponsored. Theat means access to the UN's collected data on superbeings. There are standards of conduct and training expected. But, in dangerous situations, large amounts of discretion are given to law enforcement officers when it comes to percieved danger. (The initial attack involved a masquerade--what other tricks were going on--would be an excuse). The leadership may say the character should have known better4, but that reaction alone isn't worthy of expulsion--just some talking and training, IMO. But it definitely would be noted, and would stand heavily against the character in any such future situations.

 

Nothing in Psych Lims per se. The character was possessed by the God of War and Lightning when fights started (or during other stressors), and tended to go into 'must crush enemies' mode. During a training session, the god assumed that 'if they're your allies, they can take it' and Avatar stopped using the 'safety field' and was striking for real damage on teammates in a training exercise

.

 

Gah. A tad unstable, but maybe the UN didn't know that. the other characters would, by this point, be insisting Avatar get it under control, or find a new team. Just the team itself, without outside influence, might consider this a probationary incident--ie, the character is under review, a failure to improve over a certain time period results in expulsion.

 

Unlikely. I drew specific attention to Tapper reacting to Tag about to waylay Avatar, including a dramatic 'NO!' and him intentionally and repeatingly tagging the same object so there's no way he (Tag) could miss it. I know I said 'You can see Tapper repeatedly poking the garbage can, screaming 'YOU'RE IT! YOU'RE IT!!'.

 

This really adds to the unnecessary use of force--again, maybe not expulsion worthy, but it gets noticed and documented.

 

 

Actually ... Av's previous behavior was pretty violent. The main reason more body wasn't done in previous games was that most villains were, well, pretty damn tough. She recieved a light admonition a few games previous, when there had been a VIPER-Agent beatdown, but the VIPER agents were definitely shooting to kill (thus, MILD admonition).

 

The firing on someone during extraction is the straw that breaks the back, as the REST of the team was also engaged in rendering aid. This person withdrawing the wounded wasn't engaging in a hostile action; hostilities, as indicated, had ended, and the character, frustrated by the lack of a violent end, used force instead of trying for apprehension. the UN would be justified, at this point, in telling the team that their sanction would be withdrawn if Avatar was not disciplined or removed from the team, in light of all of the behaviors and instability of the character.

[Badger]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

My thinking is that probably the injuring in the first shot is plausible and could be easily explained as a result of being knocked out. Give a pass on that one. But, the next attack on the one trying to help the injured was stepping over the line. And would definitely warrant the possiblity of expulsion. Though, after expulsion it might have been interesting to "keep" the character around to act as a villain out for vengeance against them.

[Black Omega]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

1. Point' date=' although Thor was an Avenger for a whole buncha years ... and besides, technically Athena was a god(dess) of war and she'd show a lot of restraint. We just wound up with Ares with PMS.[/quote']Thor is God of Thunder, of course. Not really a war god. Athena was more a goddess of strategy as well as justice and other things, whereas Ares was more a god of slaughter. Sounds like the Ares connection is the most valid one here.

 

2. I generally don't do too much in the way of accidental deaths' date=' in terms of crowd tramplings. The police had the place cordoned off and all that kind of crowd-control, keep-the-normals-away-from-the-carnage stuff.[/quote']I can see this, though part of what I never liked about CLOWN is their plans often got handwaved to not result in the death and trouble that it should cause, because they are 'funny'. I do lack a sense of humor, yes.

 

Sounds like ultimately the best solution was expulsion. The character doesn't look like she was going to adjust to what the team needed.

[RDU Neil]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I'm such a metagamer, that I have to say that is the way to address this.

 

1) It seems pretty clear that you have established a well defined Four Color world. Scenes like CLOWN fake attacking the UN do not, and never will, result in "real" situations like accidental deaths and property damage that puts people out of homes or bankrupts city governments. It is not a "realistic" world at all.

 

2) All your players but one accept this world in it's Four Color craziness. The player of Avatar doesn't (seem to) buy into the genre. You don't play a four color game and expect "cathartic violence." At least IMO.

 

3) The big question that needed to be asked was, "Does Avatar's player understand that their excessive force is out of line for the game?" If yes, why is he playing? Why are you letting him play?

 

Now perhaps Avatar's player is saying, "Hey, it's cool if I get booted. Can I play the renegade hero that nobody trusts, but I still try to fight the good fight... showing up where ever the team goes, etc?" Now, IMO, the player IS into the Four Color thing... as he is willing to role play out the consequences of his actions and realizes he's on a tragic path. Cool.

 

If the player had said, "I want my character to lose control at times and use excessive force." You, as GM reply, "That will get him in trouble and make his life difficult in lots of ways." The player responds, "Cool! I want to play a character who is always making things worse for himself and while the character will suffer, I the player think that is lots of fun." Cool.

 

Now it is more likely that the player wants to "imaginary hurt stuff" to work out real world aggression and/or wants a game where combat is grim 'n gritty and wants to be rewarded for being a bad-***. In that case, the player is just in the wrong game. Punishing the character is meaningless. Trying to work out "in game" solutions for such are more likely to cause futher play dysfunction.

 

All in all, this is a metagame issue (a matter of conflicting play desires) that needs to be resolved OOC.

[JohnTaber]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

 

It's the GM's job to define the mores and acceptible behavior within the game... it's the players' job to make sure that their characters either abide by the GM's guidelines or that they suffer the consequences for failing to do so.

 

Here's what I'd do... I'd ask the player if he/she realizes that the character is behaving in a wrong/bad/crappy/evil way. If the player says that they know, and that it's part of the crap that the character needs to work through... then that's a good thing, and the character should suffer for their mistakes and be allowed to grow.

 

I think this response from Keith is great. Another I might do if there is a real issue is to end the session immediately. After folks calm down then ask the player the questions in the second paragraph above.

 

As the team is UN sanctioned I would probably have a superior read them a riot act AND give a warning about using excessive force in the future. I would also consider making this leak to the press. It would be great for subplots and reactions from other villains.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

I can see this, though part of what I never liked about CLOWN is their plans often got handwaved to not result in the death and trouble that it should cause, because they are 'funny'.

 

Exactly. Clown's "Fake Mechanon" scheme is the super-hero world's equivalent of yelling "fire !" in a crowded movie theater.

 

I think if CLOWN could work at all, it'd be in a hardcore silver-age game where it's accepted that there are fewer consequences to this kind of stuff.

[CBikle]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

Last night, I dug out my copy of Classic Organizations and checked out CLOWN's character sheets.

 

A lot of mind control, flashes and entangles all for the purposes of humiliating the characters and frustrating the players.

 

Although Avatar's violence towards Toe Tapper was over the top (and perhaps a little out of character; I'd figure that a war-god avatar would choose to focus on Tag, the more obvious and appropriate target), I wonder how much of it was fueled by the standard PC irritation that occurs whenever CLOWN pops up.

 

The one legit and in-character excuse that Avatar could give for his actions:

 

"The fight was between Tag and I; by interfering in our duel, Toe Tapper dishonored me, and, as a result, suffered the consequences. I don't think Toe Tapper will ever do that again."

[Karma]

Re: How would you have handled this (GMs)?

 

The problem here is not that Avatar downed Toe-Tapper with a Killing attack, that could be interpreted as 'didn't know he couldn't take it', but the fact that he saved Avatar should also not come into it since you could say she was unaware of the save having been stunned silly at the time.

 

What makes this criminal is the taking potshots at his team-mates when they try to help him. This, above all pushes the crime into the bloodthirsty, sadistic range. Keeping an enemy's allies from getting him medical attention when he is bleeding to death is the sign of a villian, not a hero. Now the War God might support this type of behaviour, but that just means that he's a bloodthirsty War God who should be hanging out with other psychotics, not with heroes.

 

Were I UNTIL I'd start having the boys in 'Occult Investigations' looking for a way to exorcise a god, or at least imprison one since this guy has gone from 'shakey ally' to 'threat to public safety'.