Pulling Authority & Other Genres

[csyphrett]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Nobody has so far answered to my comment.

 

Why should the STARDARD for heroism in supers genre be different than every other genre ?

 

It's not. The Authority just doesn't live up to the standard.

CES

[cutsleeve]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

I agree with Enforcer Saying "I'm taking over the world because i can run it better then you is a classical evil mastermind schtick." Plus the authority is most definately not what id call "good world leader" material. Midnighter for instance has a habit of killing, maiming, and severely injuring anyone who makes even a passing homophobic comment. That id say is taking things a bit too far.

[Markdoc]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

I think teh bunneh has hit the nail right on the head. Fictional or role-playing characters (or their players) who want to rule the world are crazy. Nobody in The Authority was truly sane' date=' if you think about it. I kinda thought that was the whole point of the story.[/quote']

 

You're right - the original authors (who I think did a bang-up job, before the story got Franchised and went all to hell) said of them that the Authority were the "villains of their own story".

 

I'm not even certain The Authority wasn't really more of a protest against Iron Age-ism than it was an Iron Age saga. Seriously' date=' who would've wanted to be any of them?[/quote']

 

Oh, I'd be the Engineer, in a heartbeat - she's one of the two optimists in the bunch and she grew up reading superhero comics, which shows in her attitude (so maybe she's wildly idealistic rather than actually insane). Apollo is OK, as well. The rest of them, though ... ewww.

 

But you're right, generally anyway - the whole point of the original Authority was to point out that even "gritty" and "realistic" Iron Age comics are as unrealistic as their earlier incarnations: they are just unrealistic abut different conventions.

 

cheers, Mark

[Korvar]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Nobody has so far answered to my comment.

 

Why should the STARDARD for heroism in supers genre be different than every other genre ?

 

Possibly because superheroes are different.

 

In most other genres, the protagonists are human, specifically of a human power level. Superheroes are not, and thus have different options.

 

Take a cop, for example. If someone tries to shoot at them, pretty much the only response is to shoot back - to reply with deadly force. We don't currently have technology that would allow a cop to remain safe from firearms, nor that would allow them to safely restrain someone who's intent on firing a gun.

 

Superheroes, on the other hand, do have those options. Supertech, weird powers, years of training, whatever. So lethal force becomes only an option, not a necessity. It's a very different thing to kill someone when you want to, not because you have to.

 

It would be like responding to a six-year-old pointing a water-pistol at you by shooting them through the head.

 

The other question is why superheroes don't try and change the world. And the reason behind that is, we seem to want to read about "our world, but with superheroes". And if superheroes ever actually decided to change the world, it would very quickly not be our world at all.

 

Looking at the Marvelman/Miracleman comics set after the supers take over, it's immediately obvious their world is nothing like ours any more. It's not a superhero story any more, it's a science fiction utopia/dystopia (depending on your point of view).

 

If superheroes take over, humans become irrelevant. And I don't think many people want to read things about how they're basically pets, kept around for nostalgic affection as much as anything else.

 

If Superman ever took it into his head to end world poverty, he probably could. But then, why would we mere humans ever bother to try to fix our own problems ever again? Why innovate, struggle, strive? Why give to others or volunteer? After all, won't Superman fix it?

[SilentMan]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

It's not a superhero story any more, it's a science fiction utopia/dystopia

 

Which proves that the entire genre is static and rather limited in scope.

 

If Superman kills, he is not a hero anymore.

If Superman becomes deadbeat dad, he is not a hero anymore.

If Superman refuses to save his worst enemy, he is not a hero anymore.

If Superman changes world, he is not a hero anymore.

If Superman refuses to respect law and authorities, he is not a hero anymore.

 

Serial format simply is stagnant format.

If anything radical happens, fanboys cry foul (Hal Jordan as Parallax,Superman as energy being)

 

Here is an article which suggests that entire concept of hero should be dropped.

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=moto&article=113

[Trebuchet]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

In Dark Knight Strikes Again' date=' Superman rejects humanity and its laws: "Ma. Pa. You were wrong. . . . I am not one of them. I am not human.""It took my own daughter and my darkest rival – my despised opponent – to teach me – I am not human." "And I am no man's servant. I am no man's slave. I will not be ruled by the laws of men.""I am no man. I am Superman."[/quote']1) Dark Knight, et al, was hardly canonical.

 

2) Superman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was manifestly a government agent and said "At least this way, I get to fight crime." That would seem to belie your entire argument here.

 

Green Lantern also accepted the "shadow" side of superherodom that Batman represents. Green Lantern says that Batman was right: "Of course we're criminals. We've always been criminals. On this planet we have to be criminals." In other words, the superheroes cannot cooperate with human government; they must stand in opposition to it.

It was Green Arrow who said that.

 

Face the facts, in other genres the Authority would be considered heroic.

Not by me or most of the civilized world. Why is a superpowered dictator better than Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler? (Sorry, Godwin.) Would them possessing superpowers have somehow made their tyrannies more palatable?

 

What made Superman admirable and a hero wasn't his powers; it was that even with all his powers he didn't decide to become a dictator.

 

1.Millar, Ellis and their kind are right.

2.Comics Code is dumb.It should never have existed.

1) They have a very sick and twisted view of both humanity and heroism. If they're right, then I'd prefer to be wrong.

 

2) Interestingly, the demise of the Comics Code pretty much spelled the end of comic reading for me. I have to play Champions to get my superhero fix these days because few if any current published superheroes meet my standards as heroes. Nowadays it seems the focus is on the super rather than the hero.

 

I'm increasingly suspecting that you're just a false handle for Wanderer. Wouldn't rpg.net be more suited to your taste?

[nexus]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Skip it. I've been down this road with Wanderer before (I just might be going down it with him again) and it never ends well.

[Korvar]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Which proves that the entire genre is static and rather limited in scope.

 

If Superman kills, he is not a hero anymore.

Correct. Superman doesn't need to kill - he's Superman! I can't see someone who chooses to kill, when he has no actual reason to, as a hero.

If Superman becomes deadbeat dad, he is not a hero anymore.

Sounds reasonable to me.

If Superman refuses to save his worst enemy, he is not a hero anymore.

I've always felt that the superhero genre, at its best, is about hope. The belief that Good can overcome Evil. Killing your worst enemy, or failing to save your worst enemy, is the opposite - believing that in the end, bad guys can't ever change for the better.

If Superman changes world, he is not a hero anymore.

If he changes the world, he changes the genre he's in. And there are all sorts of difficult questions there. Just because he has the power to change the world, does he have the right? Is it as easy as ending world poverty - or will that have unintended consequences? Look at the stories of people who win vast amounts of money in lotteries, and then self-destruct. Perhaps, if someone really did change the world - ending poverty, hunger, disease, war - Earth as a whole would have the same problems as these lottery winners. Who knows?

 

It's an interesting concept, and it's one that has been expored in the supehero genre; however, it also stops being a superhero story at that point. So if you're running the Superman comic book, you're not going to do it in the standard monthly comic.

If Superman refuses to respect law and authorities, he is not a hero anymore.

Well, that I disagree with. If Superman refuses to respect law and authority, he's not Superman any more, because Superman as an individual has been shown to be a bit of a Boy Scout (well, at least for most of his existence - as has been said earlier on this thread, it wasn't always so). Batman doesn't respect law or authority that much (some individual cops, yes, but not The Law as a whole), and he's a hero. There are several heroes not on the side of the law.

 

I think it comes down to the power of the individual hero - if they could topple a government all by themselves, then essentially they can become a dictator, a tyrant. There's actually no way they could become anything else - submitting to the will of the people requires respecting law and authority. And I don't think I'm alone in not seeing dictators and tyrants as particularly heroic.

 

Serial format simply is stagnant format.

If anything radical happens, fanboys cry foul (Hal Jordan as Parallax,Superman as energy being)

 

Well, those weren't just radical changes, they were stupid radical changes. They were bad ideas, regardless of how radical they may or may not have been. Being radical is not, in and of itself, good.

 

As to being static, or stagnant... the superhero genre is not exactly alone when it comes to being static. Almost all TV series, soap operas, westerns... all pretty static. The illusion of change, perhaps, but not the real thing. Because if you allow the introduction of the motor car into the Western, it stops being a Western, and the people who wanted to watch a Western TV show (or comic, or novel series, or whatever) stop watching. And then it dies.

 

All the things you appear to want have been done. Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns, The Authority... I could go on. Is it going to happen in the mainstream Superman comic books? Extremely unlikely. But that's okay; the other stuff is there too.

[SilentMan]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Superman in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns was manifestly a government agent

 

Then he changed his mind

 

It was Green Arrow who said that.

 

Maybe.I picked up that text from Comics in Context #34: Knight Makes Right by Peter Sanderson

 

Not by me or most of the civilized world.

 

Like i said, in other genres heroes kill just as much villains.

 

The Simbul wants Thay eradicated from face of Faerun.

The Doctor wanted Daleks eradicated and in episode 165 - Dalek

attempted to finish the job.

 

When it comes to real world, the state has near-monopoly when it comes to use of force. But when a nation goes to war, the public has often approved with full knowledge of consequences.

 

When soldiers went to WW1,WW2 or Vietnam, do you really think that public believed that everyone comes back alive and unharmed ? Do you think that public believed that soldiers could defeat enemy by non-lethal measures.

 

Yet public approved of wars in many countries and if soldiers came back as winners, they were applauded for it.

 

Would them possessing superpowers have somehow made their tyrannies more palatable?

 

Tyrant is a strong word, with loaded connotations. In ancient Greece, it originally was an ethically neutral term (some tyrants were seen as good, some as bad), designating only that a person had successfully overthrown an established government and arrogated the law unto himself. Later, tyranny became aligned with the more modern senses of cruel despotism or oppressive dictatorship. Whether you think good or ill of him, the tyrant is a ruler who believes he can and should operate above the law.

 

Yet there are people who think democracy is tyranny of majority.Then there is people who believe Supreme Court is judicial tyranny and even President Bush is a tyrant.Even American-style republic has opponents (who are not arabs or Neo-Nazis either).

 

Everyone who does not get his way in this world can call his enemies bullies and tyrants and demand his freedom.Freedom and tyranny are ultimate loaded rhetorical concepts without strict,universally accepted definitions.

 

it was that even with all his powers he didn't decide to become a dictator.

 

He never had to since writers solved every problem with power boosts, writer´s fiat and deus ex machinas.

 

There was one story where Lex Luthor actually defeated Superman for a short while by stripping Superman his powers.

 

Since Status Quo demanded Superman´s victory, Superman simply started kissing Lois lane and thanks to power of love Luthor´s power-nullifying machine stopped working.

 

Nowadays it seems the focus is on the super rather than the hero.

 

How about Wanted or Empire.They are about out-right villains.

 

you're just a false handle for Wanderer

 

Never met the man.Never talked to him.

[assault]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

For the record: if I was playing a superhero in a world where other "heroes" started overthrowing governments, I would oppose them. (WWII aside.)

 

At first I would attempt to talk them down. I would adopt military ethics, if necessary, after that.

 

That, you see, is another flaw with the superhuman takeover theory - if there are other superhumans aside from those doing the takeover, the coup will be resisted.

 

To put it another way - heroes would arise to oppose the villains!

[Korvar]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

You know, I'm really not sure I understand your point, SilentMan. If you want to see super-powered people killing, there's comics for that. If you want to see them taking over the world, there's comics for that. If you don't want to read comics where super-powered people aren't killing, and aren't taking over the world, I'm not sure anyone's forcing you to.

 

Yes, the mainstream superhero genre is its own odd little thing, with its own odd little tropes. Just like every other genre.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

I had prepared a fairly detailed response to SilentMan' date=' but I believe he and I have too fundamental a difference in viewpoints and personal preferences for it to be a meaningful exchange. I'll just agree to disagree, and leave it at that. [/quote']

 

 

I'm in the same boat The fact that his examples all come from stories I despise and feel just don't get it doesn't help either. I 'll just say I disagree with silent man 100%

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

 

Here is an article which suggests that entire concept of hero should be dropped.

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=moto&article=113

 

 

I'm sorry i just can't help myself . I have to comment.That article is everything that is wrong with the thinking today on what should be Heroic styles of fiction. Yuk!!!!! You can lay all the "logical" crap you want down for how things should be but only the classic style of heroism will get my money so I just save it mostly nowadays and we role play our stories instead ( or watch JLU) i loath iron age thinking with a passion which smashes suns. Ok, I;m done i need to be this just annoys me too much. Out of here!

[casualplayer]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

The lead character in a story is not necessarily a hero; it's not a given. Using Genji, an effete, arrogant, self-involved Japanese nobleman, as an example of a hero really stretches the definition past the breaking point. Using the Superman of the Great Depression to make a current point is like using your grade school behavior to interpret your argument now.

 

James Bond has been given a license to kill, implying two things: most agents don't have express permission to kill and the privilege must be earned and can be revoked. Dr. Who had many encounters with the Daleks before he came to the conclusion that they were implacable foes unable to be deterred in any other way. Almost all of your examples derive their authority from another, higher source.

 

History has proven time and again that putting the power and the decisionmaking into the same set of hands was a horrible mistake. And it has happened time and again because people keep having to relearn this lesson.

 

Play whatever game you and your players want and enjoy, but don't mistake it for philosophy or research. It's social imagining, no more and no less.

[Korvar]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

The lead character in a story is not necessarily a hero; it's not a given. Using Genji' date=' an effete, arrogant, self-involved Japanese nobleman, as an example of a hero really stretches the definition past the breaking point.[/quote']

 

My usual example is Avon, from Blake's Seven, but that might be a bit obscure...

 

James Bond has been given a license to kill, implying two things: most agents don't have express permission to kill and the privilege must be earned and can be revoked. Dr. Who had many encounters with the Daleks before he came to the conclusion that they were implacable foes unable to be deterred in any other way. Almost all of your examples derive their authority from another, higher source.

 

And James Bond kills people who are able to kill him, who pose a direct threat to himself, other people, or the world as a whole.

 

The Doctor killed the Daleks (well, mostly) as part of a war, after they had already destroyed Gallifrey, meaning there was nothing between them and the extermination of the entire Galaxy, if not Universe. And he often seemed as upset by what he'd done as by the destruction of his home planet.

 

As an aside, Superman actually has killed, in relatively recent times (well, 1988, as part of John Byrne's Post Crisis revamp), for similar reasons: Three Kryptonians, each actually more powerful than Superman, had killed the entire population of an alternate Earth. Superman had removed their powers, theoretically permanently.

 

Superman tried, convicted, and ultimately executed the three of them. Partly, it was because he was the only thing left resembling a justice system (he was literally the only other living thing in that alternate universe), but also because if the three ever got their powers back, and found a way to Superman's universe, they could easily kill another six billion people.

 

In my opinion (and I realise opinions are very divided on this particular issue), this was a very radical, very strong, and very powerful story, which had a lot of knock-on effects down the years. And that's without turning him into a mass-murdering tyrant

[Enforcer84]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Heroes sometimes are forced to take a life, to kill.

Killers are never heroes.

 

There's a difference and if you choose not to see it, it must be very frustrating for you.

[Clonus]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Why is it wrong if Authority-like team decides to take over ?

 

It's wrong for the same reason the Pentagon deciding that politicians are idiots and from now on the nation shall be ruled by a junta of capable military men is wrong.

 

 

In every other genre heroes are ruthless killers.

 

a) Fantasy: The Simbul wants destroy the nation of Thay and

Elminster in The Shadow of the Avatar Trilogy considered destroying entire realms of men.

 

Many things are considered. Nothing says a superhero can't _consider_ killing. However, characters in fantasy are generally more analogous to soldiers than cops, unlike a superhero. When they aren't, they're generally scummy lowlives or civilians caught out of their depth and desperately struggling to survive.

 

 

b)Horror: Not a lot heroes, but Abramah van Helsing DID kill.

 

Decapitating demon-possessed corpses doesn't count. Superheroes also routinely stake vampires when they meet them.

 

c) Space Opera: Entire worlds are destroyed. Dr.Who happily destroyed the Dalek fleet.

 

One of Doctor Who's great appealing qualities is that for him killing is genuinely a last resort, and not a phony last resort where characters pretend to be unwilling to kill but somehow are forced into that corner every time.

 

d) Military & police: Use lethal force when necessary.

 

The military and the police can only use lethal force within the context of regulations and the law. Also, when you are superhumanly powerful, certain things become a lot less necessary. If someone shot at me I would be totally justified in killing them dead. If someone shot at Superman...not so much.

 

e) Pulp,Noir,Modern Action: Same goes here.James Bond and Jack Bauer are ruthless killers.

 

Uh-hunh. To the point that the military actually sent someone to the guys making 24 to ask them to tone it down because Bauer was such a bad role model.

City streets are the most obvious but we could get into the details like the legality of flying under ones own power and if it requires a liscense to do so.

 

It doesn't. Flying under your own power is legal.

 

Then let's go to things like Super Strength. Unless you are exceptionally careful and vigilant you would destroy things without even trying. You could cripple someone you where simply trying to be intimate with, a hug could crush a rib cage.

 

I fail to see how the potential for accident justifies either being a deliberate killer, or taking over.

 

Telepathy you could never use since it would very well be a violation of privacy.

 

People violate other people's privacy all the time. It isn't illegal in itself.

 

These are just a few of the powers that are not even seriously offensive (Like Strike and Blast). In a real world things would spiral very quickly for a super human. So quickly that unless they had the patience of a saint they might quickly go the whole Magneto route and simply not accept societies rule of law.

 

I don't want to play supervillains.

1.If Authority are villains since they break the law so are Jla-members.

 

Specious. The accusation is not that The Authority are villains since they break the law. It's that they are villains because they are casual killers who overthrew the government of the United States. Said accusation may be unfair, I can't say since I avoid reading The Authority.

2: It would be better to get rid of Comics Code

 

That happened some 20+ years ago.

 

3. Rule of law is for Joe Normals, not demigods who should be by definition too much for mortal authorities to handle

4. Difference between heroism and villainy should be moral rather than legal and independent of human society and the existence of planet Earth.

 

And what would that moral difference be?

 

My solution to Marvel Civil War would have been:

 

1.Anti-regs overthrow government

2. Captain America and Avengers create their own nation

 

So...how would they be different from Doctor Doom?

[caris]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Conclusion:

 

1.If Authority are villains since they break the law so are Jla-members.

2: It would be better to get rid of Comics Code

3. Rule of law is for Joe Normals, not demigods who should be by definition too much for mortal authorities to handle

4. Difference between heroism and villainy should be moral rather than legal and independent of human society and the existence of planet Earth.

 

SilentMan,

 

I’m assuming that these are your conclusions (as opposed to something said by some one else that you are quoting) and the things that you want to have addressed.

 

Let us, please, start with the conclusion that I find to be, by far, the most interesting one, number four. OK, how exactly do we come up with a standard for heroism and/or villainy that is independent of humanity and the planet Earth? In particular, how do we do this without input from the rest of the sentient universe? From a functional stand point we have to come up with these definitions based on our current level of knowledge, and be prepared to move on and upward from there. Which does lead to a problem that people are going to define those things differently.

 

This leads us to conclusion number three. The one that I would really like to hear more of your reasoning for this position. It smacks of elitism. The concept that just because Apollo, Midnighter, et. al. are capable of destroying the planet means that they therefore are the ones that have the authority to tell the rest of us how to live. That their enslavement and domination of us would be inherently moral, in other words might makes right. You will find most citizens of the United States will reject this. We started formulating this rejection culturally a couple of centuries ago, and have been refining it ever since. So for many of us, a being that breaks the laws in circumstances that we would find to be inappropriate would not meet our definition of a hero based on moral grounds. This in turn gets into the ever more complicated issues we have here in the United States (and I suspect several other countries), where we want our criminals caught by any means necessary on some levels, but we want only the rights of criminals, who in our minds have gave up those rights by being criminals, to be infringed. In fiction we can live that out as a fantasy.

 

This in turn leads us to conclusion number one, people are not thinking of the Authority as villains, simply because they break laws. They think of the Authority as villains, because they are violating that person’s opinion as to what the moral/ethical thing to do in those situations are. That the Authority ultimately crossed a line in volume and/or severity of action that turned them from being people to respect and admire to sources of evil. In particular, their grabbing power without the consent of those they are governing, is a real stick in the craw for a lot of modern Americans.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

I promised myself that I wouldn't pursue this anymore, but I have to respond to this direct challenge:

 

Nobody has so far answered to my comment.

 

Why should the STARDARD for heroism in supers genre be different than every other genre ?

 

Because superheroes are supposed to represent the best of what humanity can be. These are not characters in the same sense as those in other genres. When they put on their colorful costumes and code names, they become living symbols, the embodiment of some of the core ideals of Western, especially American culture: truth, justice, and the rule of law; the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak. Hand in hand with their exceptional abilities comes a higher standard of conduct to which they are held. Many of them have the power to stop a threat without killing, and killing when unnecessary would be irresponsible and criminal.

 

Note that world militaries and police forces recognize and enforce the standard of "necessary force," at least in the democratic world.

 

Real world US military afterall nuked Hiroshima and destroyed Dresden.

 

I suppose they are villains too.

 

The US military took those actions during time of war, when killing was already part of the equation. They did it to stop the war as soon as possible and minimize further casualties from prolonged conflict. And they did it with the authorization and at the command of their governments. They did not take authority upon themselves.

 

Authority ARE villains if you use Silver Age Comics Code-standard.

 

But when this genre was invented in Action Comics #1, Superman was violent anarchist.

 

When Superman was created, black people were often lynched with impunity in the United States, Fascists were popularly-elected governments in Europe, and the capitalist world was coming out of a global depression during which thousands of people starved or died of exposure because they had no work and their countries offered them no support. Society has evolved in that time, and comic characters have evolved with it. The past isn't necessarily better or more appropriate, nor is past precedent necessarily a model for the way things should be now.

 

In the first 2-3 years of Superman comic books and comic strips' date=' the Man of Steel was a far cry from the character we know today. Described by co-creator Jerry Siegel as "a thorn in the side of the establishment", this Superman's tagline was not, "Truth, Justice, and the American Way," but rather "Champion of the Oppressed." Instead of super-villians and space aliens, he used direct action to fight slumlords, munitions manufacturers and their lackeys in government, warmongering heads of state, and the execution of innocent people. Within three years, DC had seized control of the character and began transforming him into the toothless symbol of status quo "justice" we've known for decades.[/quote']

 

And in that form he's become renowned around the world and has endured as an icon for generations. You have every right to dislike the character as he is and prefer a different take on him, but you appear to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the character is somehow objectively "wrong" because he doesn't conform to your standard. Comparing comics to other genres is comparing apples to oranges, and does not in itself support your contention.

[Clonus]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

 

 

And in that form he's become renowned around the world and has endured as an icon for generations. You have every right to dislike the character as he is and prefer a different take on him, but to say that the character is somehow objectively "wrong" because he doesn't conform to your standard is insupportable.

 

I have considered a deconstructionist take on the start of a super-team where the lesser powered heroes band together to show a character similar to the original iteration of Superman that he is still answerable to humanity.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

You can have flawed heroes(compulsive womanizer, alcoholic; angst-ridden loser who whines a lot and barely scrapes by; publicity/money-seeking gloryhound; etc.) who remain heroic because 1)their intentions remain largely good and 2) their major choices are largely good from an ethical standpoint(though they may still make wrong or controversial choices). When their intentions are no longer quite so good, and their major choices get uglier and murkier, they start to slip into villainy, imo.

If the compulsive womanizer used his powers to arrange the "Accidental death" of a woman's husband, or to mind control someone into becoming his girlfriend, he's slipped into villainy. If the publicity/money-seeking gloryhound started robbing banks because the money and notoriety fulfilled his "needs" better, he's slipped into villainy.

You could have a flawed hero who makes difficult or questionable choices, but then you're really skirting the limits of what defines a "hero". If Superman saves the world twice a week, but has a private life that'd make R. Kelly and Michael Jackson say, "Damn, that's just WRONG", well, most people aren't going to see him as quite so heroic. If Batman overthrows Gotham City Hall, seals the city in a Bat-Force-Shield and imposes Bat-Martial-Law in order to crack down on lawlessness and corruption, some people are definitely going to think he's gone too far. Maybe even most people.

 

My main difficulty is in trying to see how an Authority-style game would prove to be satisfying as a long-running campaign. I mean, once you take over the world and get rid of everyone who looks at you funny, where's the challenge?

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

I have considered a deconstructionist take on the start of a super-team where the lesser powered heroes band together to show a character similar to the original iteration of Superman that he is still answerable to humanity.

 

Now that is a very cool concept. Turns some fundamental comics preconceptions on their ear, while still emphasizing the principles of traditional superheroics.

 

Of course the question of "where do we go afterward" might limit long-term story potential, unless you take the team in a different direction.

[megaplayboy]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

That's a pretty good team concept--kind of a variation on the "Second Fiddle" team of support characters/sidekicks for a Superman/Doc Savage type mega-hero.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

Nobody has so far answered to my comment.

 

Why should the STARDARD for heroism in supers genre be different than every other genre ?

 

Maybe because it is SUPERHEROism. Just as their powers are far beyond anything normal, or in other types of genres, so too are thier moral codes, ideals and beliefs. They are iconic and reflecting their ideals in their actions.

 

It is one of the few action genres where idealism and holding to a superior moral code is the standard - a bright shining light where not much else is.

[Korvar]

Re: Pulling Authority & Other Genres

 

4. Difference between heroism and villainy should be moral rather than legal and independent of human society and the existence of planet Earth.

I think "not killing unless absolutely necessary" fits that criterion. Perhaps "not depriving others of rights, property or freedoms unless absolutely necessary" would, too. And there's always good old "treat others as you would be treated".