Genocide

[Metaphysician]

Re: Genocide

 

I don't think the arguement is that such groups are not realistic in human attutide' date=' but that in genre they are not realistic, meaning that they pick on certain people with power and not others. Marvel X books have people hissing booing and killing X-Men, but praising the freaky Mr. Fantastic and the Thing. The Genre is ... [b']uneven[/b]... in its paranoia.

 

This is not to say such groups would not exist in a "realistic" (used loosly around human interactions or anything in a comicbook) world but they would be out to end any "threat" to humanity as they see it, be it the guy that shoots eye beams or streach like a rubber band. If he got his power from an accident of birth or just a radiation accident I would think a set of the population would be afraid of the freaks. And that subset would not be discrimating on how they got the power.

 

Actually, no, while I have logical objections to the usual portrayals along these lines, my objection is primarily stylistic. Its a bored cliche, and one that more or less runs counter to the whole point of certain character archetypes ( the Supermans and Captain Americas ) existing.

[Vestnik]

Re: Genocide

 

Actually' date=' no, while I have logical objections to the usual portrayals along these lines, my objection is primarily stylistic. Its a bored cliche, and one that more or less runs counter to the whole point of certain character archetypes ( the Supermans and Captain Americas ) existing.[/quote']

 

I think that in anything approaching the Real World, the governments of the Earth would have identified Superman as a major potential threat to, well, everything. That would have stockpiled huge reservoirs of kryptonite (assuming such can be found) at the very least.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Genocide

 

I don't think the arguement is that such groups are not realistic in human attutide' date=' but that in genre they are not realistic, meaning that they pick on certain people with power and not others. Marvel X books have people hissing booing and killing X-Men, but praising the freaky Mr. Fantastic and the Thing. The Genre is ... [b']uneven[/b]... in its paranoia.

 

Exactly. How can you tell whether the FF are, or are not, mutants? They sure LOOK like mutants! Quit telling us you aren't mutants, you stinking mutants!

 

I recall an old Avengers shortly after the Beast joined, when he flashed an Avengers ID card to a cop, who was uncertain. "How do I know you're not related to that mutant Beast?"

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

This is why, in my campaign, GENOCIDE will start as a radical cell of Windreapers (Thunderbird's paramiliatary group), who think that all meta's, not just the ones who step out of line, need to be taken care of. After all, a meta that's behaving now, is only going to slip up later, and when meta's slip up, it's worse when "normal" folk do it...

 

They'll be funded initially by radical elements within the IHA who sympathise with their goals, but Lord Liaden has given me the perfect excuse for how I can give them access to a large amount of high-tech gear, provided the campaign goes the right way.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Genocide

 

Exactly. How can you tell whether the FF are' date=' or are not, mutants? They sure LOOK like mutants! Quit telling us you aren't mutants, you stinking mutants![/quote']

Well, the FF's origin is public knowledge so it's easy to say they're not mutants. But that applies to a fairly small minority of superheroes. How does John Q. Public know that Storm is a mutant but Spider-Man isn't?

 

The idea of an anti-meta group makes sense. I can even sorta buy the idea that some people are more afraid of mutants, because mutants represent a "replacement" race that they fear will make normal humans obsolete. The FF were normal humans "like us" who gained powers in a freak accident - they won't be replacing humanity, so less reason to fear them. I can sorta buy that.

 

But the way the cliche is played in comics requires the public to have perfect knowledge of character origins. Doesn't make sense.

[ThothAmon]

Re: Genocide

 

Anti-mutant is a bit tired. Back in the day (2nd edition Champions) even a novice GM like me realised this. Anti-supernormal is much more believable

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Genocide

 

Well, the FF's origin is public knowledge so it's easy to say they're not mutants. But that applies to a fairly small minority of superheroes. How does John Q. Public know that Storm is a mutant but Spider-Man isn't?

 

The idea of an anti-meta group makes sense. I can even sorta buy the idea that some people are more afraid of mutants, because mutants represent a "replacement" race that they fear will make normal humans obsolete. The FF were normal humans "like us" who gained powers in a freak accident - they won't be replacing humanity, so less reason to fear them. I can sorta buy that.

 

But the way the cliche is played in comics requires the public to have perfect knowledge of character origins. Doesn't make sense.

 

Well, they CLAIM they're normal humans who gained superpowers in a freak accident they CLAIM happened. Those mutants have some pretty bizarre technology, so how tough would it be to fly up in the air, stage a crash and then come out brandishing your mutant powers and CLAIMING you weren't like that before you went up.

 

Filthy lying mutants!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Genocide

 

Just don't let Richards know you've penetrated his cover story...

 

Joking aside, a question: assuming that Reed & Sue are not considered "mutants" because they weren't born with their powers, what does that make Franklin?

Besides an absurdly overpowered Deux Ex plot device with delusions of character, I mean.

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

Just don't let Richards know you've penetrated his cover story...

 

Joking aside, a question: assuming that Reed & Sue are not considered "mutants" because they weren't born with their powers, what does that make Franklin?

Besides an absurdly overpowered Deux Ex plot device with delusions of character, I mean.

...Who?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Genocide

 

...Who?

Franklin Richards? Their son?

 

(I'm not sure if you genuinely don't know about him, or are trying to repress. Either would be appropriate!)

[LoresLost]

Re: Genocide

 

Just don't let Richards know you've penetrated his cover story...

 

Joking aside, a question: assuming that Reed & Sue are not considered "mutants" because they weren't born with their powers, what does that make Franklin?

Besides an absurdly overpowered Deux Ex plot device with delusions of character, I mean.

 

I thought Franklin was potentally the worlds most powerful mutant (do to the freaky radiation that gave the FF their power. That was the reason that Reed hid (or still is hidding) his power and I believe he is even sheided from Ceribus (But that was way before House of M)

[David Johnston]

Re: Genocide

 

Well, the FF's origin is public knowledge so it's easy to say they're not mutants. But that applies to a fairly small minority of superheroes. How does John Q. Public know that Storm is a mutant but Spider-Man isn't?

 

They know that Storm is a mutant because she's a member of the X-Men, a specifically mutant organisation. If she'd shown up and announced that she was Thor's lovechild and Black Panther's niece, the public would have taken that at face value instead, at least until Thor and Black Panther objected publicly, or a giant robot came along talking to itself very loudly about how it detected a mutant.

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

Franklin Richards? Their son?

 

(I'm not sure if you genuinely don't know about him, or are trying to repress. Either would be appropriate!)

No, just genuinely ignorant. Ho-hum... ...Reed Richard's, "smartest man on Earth", did something monumentally stupid and had issue with Sue?

 

*sigh*Seriously. One of the reasons I stopped reading these things is that character growth was always artificial and unrealistic, with what felt like severe editorial constraints. "No, Reed can't stop being clueless despite having to actually pay attention to the world outside his lab, because he's Reed Richards, Brilliant but Clueless. Unless of course, we're doing a revamp in an effort to turn around falling [from the company's perspective] sales figures, at which we throw practically everything out the window, piss on what few loyal readers we do have, and [expletive deleted] the core character concept to death."

 

[expletive deleted][expletive deleted][expletive deleted]!

 

Sorry, but there's a reason I generally only read the western stuff in TP, and even then, it's on loan from friends. Hell, I don't think I've paid money for a western title in, oh, when was the "Bounty on Spiderman's Head" storyline? The one in which he ends up having to adopt several other identities, just to keep ahead of the spidey-hunters. I didn't even see that one through, and I actually enjoyed that one.

[Metaphysician]

Re: Genocide

 

No offense, but. . . what the hell? Exactly what is "stupid" in the fact that a married couple wanted to have kids, and eventually succeeded?

[Alverant]

Re: Genocide

 

I don't think the arguement is that such groups are not realistic in human attutide' date=' but that in genre they are not realistic, meaning that they pick on certain people with power and not others. Marvel X books have people hissing booing and killing X-Men, but praising the freaky Mr. Fantastic and the Thing. The Genre is ... [b']uneven[/b]... in its paranoia.

 

This is not to say such groups would not exist in a "realistic" (used loosly around human interactions or anything in a comicbook) world but they would be out to end any "threat" to humanity as they see it, be it the guy that shoots eye beams or streach like a rubber band. If he got his power from an accident of birth or just a radiation accident I would think a set of the population would be afraid of the freaks. And that subset would not be discrimating on how they got the power.

 

On the other hand, superhumans who were once normals who had an accident could be more acceptable with the same logic people use when justifing not going to the doctor on a regular basis, yakking on the cell phone while driving, etc because those sort of things happen to "other people".

 

Mutants are something else. You could create one. Mutants didn't suffer any accidents, no exposure to radiation, no high tech armor, no supercop. Mutants just are. That's what frightens people. Your boss, your neighbor, your daughter, could have uncontrollable power and not even know it.

 

Now I know a lot of this can be applied to other superhumans. For all you know the rude neighbor down the block is a supervillain in disguise. But remember mutants exist in real life. They don't have powers. They often have deformities we call "birth defects" or if you want to use softer language "genetic disorders". So parents of a mutant know something they can't accept, they made their child a mutant. They are responsible.

[Alverant]

Re: Genocide

 

Tecnhically Franklin Richards is not a mutant. Mutants are unexpected alterations in an organism's DNA at conception. His parents are mutates, their DNA altered after conception. Franklin's DNA (as far as we know) was not altered at conception and any abilities he has are natural.

 

Now if you go with the non-technical defination of mutant, someone born with powers, then yes Franklin is one.

[Sketchpad]

Re: Genocide

 

I would say that Franklin is basically a Breed Mutant ... as in the possible pre-cursor to a new species entirely.

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

No offense' date=' but. . . what the hell? Exactly what is "stupid" in the fact that a married couple wanted to have kids, and eventually succeeded?[/quote']Where do I begin? How about at

1) I didn't say that Reed and Sue wanting raise a child was stupid.

2) I did say that the two of them having offspring is stupid.

 

Why? Simple. The accident that gave them their powers left their molecular structure rather unstable, and without understanding exactly what had happened to them (and I haven't heard of Ben having been cured for good yet), it's grossly irresponsible and (as I already stated) monumentally stupid for the two of them to have a child together. They're rich. They're famous. Let them adopt some third world child, like any normal celebrity.

[Squall]

Re: Genocide

 

Where do I begin? How about at

1) I didn't say that Reed and Sue wanting raise a child was stupid.

2) I did say that the two of them having offspring is stupid.

 

Why? Simple. The accident that gave them their powers left their molecular structure rather unstable, and without understanding exactly what had happened to them (and I haven't heard of Ben having been cured for good yet), it's grossly irresponsible and (as I already stated) monumentally stupid for the two of them to have a child together. They're rich. They're famous. Let them adopt some third world child, like any normal celebrity.

Since when do words like "smart" and "stupid" have any place in a conversation about a married couple wanting to have their own children? You're thinking about it all too rationally, when it's a decision most (if not all) couples make (if they make the decision at all) with their hearts (or other body parts) instead of their brains. Yes, even supergeniuses.

 

You're basically saying they shouldn't have the right to make babies, because they've got superpowers. Using that same logic and applying it to real life, it sounds like you feel anyone with any sort of medical history shouldn't have children, no one with a family that's got a history of birth defects should ever dare want to have their own children, and (taken to the extreme) mixed-race couples should always adopt a child of one ethnicity or the other, instead of messing around with genetics by making a mixed-race baby. Even if it's only just applied to the false realities of Marvel and DC, aren't you (at the very least) arguing that no superhuman, ever, should be allowed to have children?

 

The simple fact is, broadly speaking, it's human nature (or, rather, the nature of ever species) to want to reproduce. "Smarts" have nothing to do with it.

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

Since when do words like "smart" and "stupid" have any place in a conversation about a married couple wanting to have their own children?

It's called family planning. It's called Birth Control.

You're thinking about it all too rationally' date=' when it's a decision most (if not all) couples make (if they make the decision at all) with their hearts (or other body parts) instead of their brains. Yes, even supergeniuses.[/quote']And that's called unwanted pregnancies, absent parenting and over-population.

You're basically saying they shouldn't have the right to make babies, because they've got superpowers.

No. I'm saying that these specific individuals should not have offspring because of HOW they got their superpowers. Their powers aren't just from a genetic quirk, or a simple induced mutation. They're powers are a direct result of an instability in their molecular structures. Sue could have very easily have been giving birth to a living AM Bomb, and that's what makes it "irresponsible" and "stupid."

Using that same logic and applying it to real life, it sounds like you feel anyone with any sort of medical history shouldn't have children, no one with a family that's got a history of birth defects should ever dare want to have their own children, and (taken to the extreme) mixed-race couples should always adopt a child of one ethnicity or the other, instead of messing around with genetics by making a mixed-race baby.

By your own admission, taking my argument to it's extreme.

Even if it's only just applied to the false realities of Marvel and DC, aren't you (at the very least) arguing that no superhuman, ever, should be allowed to have children?

Food for thought, no?

The simple fact is, broadly speaking, it's human nature (or, rather, the nature of ever species) to want to reproduce. "Smarts" have nothing to do with it.

It's also human nature to feel jelousy over another having what you desire and yet cannot obtain. It's also human nature to head into self destructive behaivior in the face of extreme stress. Calling it "human nature" does not make it right or even correct behavior. It's human nature to observe and size up attractive members of whatever gender(s) we are attracted to, even if we are already committed to a relationship. It's also human nature to hate and fear that which we do not understand, which leads into the actual topic of this thread.

 

GENOCIDE, and organisations like it are highly unlikely to focus on only one source of metahuman abilities. They represent the worst part of human nature, that part that seeks to destroy that which it cannot control.

[David Johnston]

Re: Genocide

 

I don't think the arguement is that such groups are not realistic in human attutide' date=' but that in genre they are not realistic, meaning that they pick on certain people with power and not others. Marvel X books have people hissing booing and killing X-Men, but praising the freaky Mr. Fantastic and the Thing. The Genre is ... [b']uneven[/b]... in its paranoia.

 

Is it realistic that people could have a "one-drop" rule which said that if someone had one identifiably African ancestor, then they were not white, regardless of their actual pallor, but as long as people didn't look very Asian, they were still white?

[Squall]

Re: Genocide

 

My point is that some instincts -- wanting to breed -- trump IQ. It's not breaking character for a married couple, even a married couple where one of them's a supergenius, to want to have kids. If you stop and think about it in a purely rational, logical, cold, sense, then sure. Maybe they should've looked into adopting or something.

 

But rationality, logic, and cold sense don't have much place in the hearts and wombs of people in real-life, so why should they in comic books?

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

My point is that some instincts -- wanting to breed -- trump IQ. It's not breaking character for a married couple, even a married couple where one of them's a supergenius, to want to have kids. If you stop and think about it in a purely rational, logical, cold, sense, then sure. Maybe they should've looked into adopting or something.

 

But rationality, logic, and cold sense don't have much place in the hearts and wombs of people in real-life, so why should they in comic books?

I never said that the decision was impossibly unlikely, just monumentally stupid.

[Squall]

Re: Genocide

 

I never said that the decision was impossibly unlikely' date=' just monumentally stupid.[/quote']

Do you mean "stupid of Reed and Sue," or "stupid of the writers," though? I was under the opinion you were expressing distaste for the concept itself, and those who made it happen in real life -- IE, the creators of the comic broke character by letting something dumb happen, etc, etc. My argument to that was "sure, it might be stupid, but stupid happens, so it's perfectly in character."

 

If that's not what you were saying, though, well, nevermind.

[Weldun]

Re: Genocide

 

Do you mean "stupid of Reed and Sue' date='" or "stupid of the writers," though? I was under the opinion you were expressing distaste for the concept itself, and those who made it happen in real life -- IE, the creators of the comic broke character by letting something dumb happen, etc, etc. My argument to that was "sure, it might be stupid, but [i']stupid happens[/i], so it's perfectly in character."

 

If that's not what you were saying, though, well, nevermind.

Stupid of Reed and Sue, of course. I would have thought that the nature of my arguments to the defense of my position would have left little doubt of that, but having gone back over them, I'll concede a small possibility that somebody could have misinterpreted my position in such a manner.