WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

[Checkmate]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

making the alien's funnier looking doesn't make them golden age. Making it a planet eater doesn't make it silver age. The garnish changes in your examples not the actual recepies. That just changes the appearance of the foe.

Okay let's break down the actual recipe. We have:

1. Harbinger warning that someone/thing bunch of ones or things are coming to destroy all life on Earth, and says to the PC's "Kill it or it will kill you"

2. World ending threat.

 

Now my first example with the blue aliens was admittedly made up, but would still fit golden age in my estimation. My second example is taken from a silver age comic, so I can say with relative authority that it's a silver age scenario.

 

The part that is confusing me, is how is either of those different than what the OP suggested? I realize in the midst of my posting I forgot some of the OP, and didn't realize the aliens were already here mauling the humans. If we rewind a bit to before the world ending threat gets here (which may be the basis of your argument as to why it would be Iron Age in which case I would agree) it could fall into any "age".

 

As far as the Disads, I guess I'm sorta in agreement with the OP. If they never come up, how were you disadvantaged by them? If all they are are personality traits that you don't ever want to be limited by, or tested, great RP that personality and come up with something that limits you to get the points.

[ghost-angel]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

As far as the Disads' date=' I guess I'm sorta in agreement with the OP. If they never come up, how were you disadvantaged by them? If all they are are personality traits that you don't ever want to be limited by, or tested, great RP that personality and come up with something that limits you to get the points.[/quote']

 

You don't need over the top to have a Disad like CVK come into play. It occurs every time you enter combat.

 

Or do you use full power attacks on all the mooks and agents too?

 

Heck we had one come up the other week fighting DEMON. Heroes standing in the hallway after recovering from a nasty magical trap. DEMON mooks come out to collect what they think are bodies and see us. We attack them.

 

One Brick tosses the other Brick at them, Fastball Special. The players contemplate a Move Through vs Move By. Once we figure out a Move Through has a more than good chance to killing one of the DEMON scum we quickly choose the Move By.

 

Oh wait.. what was that, a Disad coming into play? A small but important moral quandary? The Characters choose a less damaging attack because they don't wish to kill anyone.

 

The mind, it boggles. Point is - Players have Characters make these small decisions all the time. We don't need it force fed to us on a large scale.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

You don't need over the top to have a Disad like CVK come into play. It occurs every time you enter combat.

Precisely. Not being able to kill a bad guy even though it would be far more convenient and fully justifiable (or even legal) is always a Disadvantage' date=' even [i']after[/i] combat. Think how much simpler Batman's life would be if he could simply kill every homicidal villain in Gotham City. It wouldn't be a very interesting comic after a while, but at least he'd get some sleep at night.

[Clonus]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

 

As far as the Disads, I guess I'm sorta in agreement with the OP. If they never come up, how were you disadvantaged by them? If all they are are personality traits that you don't ever want to be limited by, or tested, great RP that personality and come up with something that limits you to get the points.

 

Isn't there a bit of difference between "coming up" and placing the character in a situation where for session after session the character is going to be entirely hamstrung by their psych lim?

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

As far as the Disads' date=' I guess I'm sorta in agreement with the OP. If they never come up, how were you disadvantaged by them? If all they are are personality traits that you don't ever want to be limited by, or tested, great RP that personality and come up with something that limits you to get the points.[/quote']There's a considerable amount of room between "never come up" and having a Disad dominate the character's entire life. Even if the CvK is bought to the Total level it's only worth 20 points. That's 2/15 of a typical PCs Disad points; or less than once every seven adventures even assuming you simply apply it mathematically.

 

As ghost-angel has observed, CvK should apply at some level almost constantly any time the character is in combat. It will influence what attacks they are willing to use even against super-foes. It will prohibit them from using attacks that might (even inadvertently) mortally wound mooks or agents simply because the PC can't be certain medical assistance will arrive in time to save a character who drops below 0 BODY (and any player counting on that is metagaming and needs to be smacked over the head with 5ER). It might even force the character to save a villain who might die without intervention.

 

There's simply no reason for any GM to go about it in a hamhanded fashion when CvK is in constant play (or is by any good roleplayer). Now, if a character takes CvK (Total), buys his EGO up to ludicrous levels, and proceeds to kill every villain he encounters because "I made my Extraordinary EGO roll" then the player deserves to be tossed (none too gently) from the campaign.

[Clonus]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

good roleplayer). Now' date=' if a character takes CvK (Total), buys his EGO up to ludicrous levels, and proceeds to kill every villain he encounters because "I made my Extraordinary EGO roll" then the player deserves to be tossed (none too gently) from the campaign. [/quote']

 

Not if he's got a 100,000 genocidal aliens to kill.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Not if he's got a 100' date='000 genocidal aliens to kill.[/quote']If the character is a strict Buddhist and for religious or ethical reasons won't deliberately kill even a mosquito then he's got a problem. But most people won't commit murder and still have no problem killing non-humans (like cows and chickens). Aliens (even sentient ones) would probably fall into the same category for 99.99999% of the population - even supers. If it's not human, it's not murder.

 

There's no reason to assume that even such a character can't be gainfully employed in a massive war for human survival. Mohandas Gandhi carried stretchers for wounded soldiers in World War One even though he was a legitimate conscientious objector. In the American Civil War many Quakers and other pacifists tended to the sick and wounded in field hospitals at the front.

[hfergus]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

There's no reason to assume that even such a character can't be gainfully employed in a massive war for human survival. Mohandas Gandhi carried stretchers for wounded soldiers in World War One even though he was a legitimate conscientious objector. In the American Civil War many Quakers and other pacifists tended to the sick and wounded in field hospitals at the front.

This is one of the things that I thought I would see for CVK heroes. Instead this has turned into a debate over disads are too cheap or too hard. (Depending on the Gm, either could be.)Not my intent. I wanted to see the creative ideas of CVK characters and personalities of others.

 

I like the idea of "off switch", turning the leaders, or even turning the whole 100,000 into humans. Creative solutions. For what I had in mind, there is no "off switch" unless you turn the race into something else; it is genetically coded, like ants killing ants from other nests because they smell different. (of course, you could turn them into the same race without the "kill everything else" code, but are they then the same race? Hmmm.....)

 

As to making them all human, they are alive, but in a way you still have committed genocide. The race, if this is all of them, no longer exists. Turning off the gene would take a massive transform. Good idea if you can do it. Spraying half with a "other" scent would take the blood off of your hands, but still result in genocide.

 

On another note, walking out on a game you no longer like is valid, especially if you have talked to the GM and you are not agreeing. I can never see literally turning over the table as anything other than childish, even if the GM is being childish themselves or a total jerk (or other harsher word). Try to be a mature adult and just walk out if the GM is that bad. Try not to lower yourself to their level. Just my 2 cents worth.

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Cheeta and Snow Leopard will kill in defense of civilians.

 

Millennium and Iron Will will too, reluctantly, but will not stop looking for the third way.

 

Dolphin will capture or isolate the aliens without killing, again, looking for the third way. Maybe convince Nebula to let her Phantom Zone projector be reverse-engineered by human scientist?

[hfergus]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

There's a considerable amount of room between "never come up" and having a Disad dominate the character's entire life. Even if the CvK is bought to the Total level it's only worth 20 points. That's 2/15 of a typical PCs Disad points; or less than once every seven adventures even assuming you simply apply it mathematically.

 

There's simply no reason for any GM to go about it in a hamhanded fashion when CvK is in constant play (or is by any good roleplayer). Now, if a character takes CvK (Total), buys his EGO up to ludicrous levels, and proceeds to kill every villain he encounters because "I made my Extraordinary EGO roll" then the player deserves to be tossed (none too gently) from the campaign.

One of the best balanced insights on paying for disads vs not I've seen here. If they are not a disad, they should not be worth points. If they never come up, they should not be worth points. If the GM is "in your face" with them all them time, you've got a bad GM. If they never come up, you still have a bad GM, just in a different way. They player can make it come up themself by good roleplaying; in that case GM intervention is probably unecessary. I've got good players, they stay in character even when the character does something they would not (or doesn't do something they would.) They expect to pay for their disads occasionally - even ones like "fear of spiders" ("Facing Doctor Destroyer, a spider lands on their shoulder. They freak out. The Doctor gets away." I actually have a player character with this disad, and they will pay for it eventually, but not necessarily this way, it's just an example.)

[McCoy]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

For what I had in mind' date=' there is no "off switch" unless you turn the race into something else; it is genetically coded, like ants killing ants from other nests because they smell different. (of course, you could turn them into the same race without the "kill everything else" code, but are they then the same race? Hmmm.....)[/quote']

And now you're getting into "free will vs biological determinalism" and "if they can't make a choice, are they truely sentient?"

 

Said my piece, IBTL, good bye and good luck.

 

 

BTW, we've found our third way. Isolate the trigger for the xenophobia, small or whatever, flash or images vs that sense, see if they can be negotiated with then.

 

[Checkmate]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Oh wait.. what was that, a Disad coming into play? A small but important moral quandary? The Characters choose a less damaging attack because they don't wish to kill anyone.

Actually no it wasn't. How exactly did it disadvantage them? Not at all. They still took the mooks out, and probably did less damage to themselves to boot. Not only that, but that is exactly what the character with no CvK and just the default reluctance to kill would do.

The mind' date=' it boggles. Point is - Players have Characters make these small decisions all the time. We don't need it force fed to us on a large scale.[/quote']

With a 60AP cap characters can use full power all the time and not worry about killing anyone. Figure anyone fighting supers isn't going to have less than 8 Def. How many times are you going to roll 18 body on 12d6 or even 14d6?

 

Okay so let's say you play in a high powered campaign and people are throwing around 20d6, so you do actually have to pull your punch. Do you (or your GM) use the pulling your punch rules to make hitting harder? I bet you don't. Most GM's don't like to penalize players for not wanting to kill. So what have you really lost with your CvK? Nothing. You have to throw a few less dice, but you still know it's going to take the mook out. It hasn't disadvantaged you at all.

 

While I agree that having it thrown in your face every game might be a bit much, it still does need to come up.

[Wanderer]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Both Nova and Elementalor would spend some moments being utterly dumbfounded at the thought there might be even the shred of a doubt about the right thing to do, then would take off to exterminate the space locusts, their only worry that some specimen might escape their cleanup efforts. At the most, they might stop before killing the last survivors to make some checks and ensure that wiping out the locusts doesn't cause some terrible unbalance in the cosmic equilibrium of reality or the ecosystem of the Galaxy (Hey, it happened with Galactus).

 

These kinds of scenario is part of the reason why I regard CvK as a supremely stupid Disadv and would never ever take it for a character nor play in hard-core Silver-Age games (except maybe in the much toned-down "Will Not Kill In Cold Blood" or "Prefers Not To Kill" variants). In my campaigns, the only recurring urredeamable mass murderers a la Joker have very good pragmatic reasons why they can't be reliably killed (either killing them only makes things much worse, or it can't take them down for long).

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

With a 60AP cap characters can use full power all the time and not worry about killing anyone. Figure anyone fighting supers isn't going to have less than 8 Def. How many times are you going to roll 18 body on 12d6 or even 14d6?

 

For a character with a serious CvK, too often for them to toss full power attacks at mooks. Especially those with activation based armor. Thos full power attacks can do 'killer' knockback as well.

 

I tend to use a mook rule where taking there BODY at once = insta death, which restrains characters from using their killing attacks even against targets very low resistant defenses who would easily be taken out bby such an attack.

 

You have to throw a few less dice, but you still know it's going to take the mook out. It hasn't disadvantaged you at all.

 

Maybe psychologcal problems have raminifcations more than which attack the PC tosses. Trying to save those knocked out mooks from the self destructing or burning villains lair, for example.

 

While I agree that having it thrown in your face every game might be a bit much, it still does need to come up.

 

Absolutely--but players don't have to be railroaded into situations where they feel they are being punished for taking a disadvantage. Heck, Disadvatntages are far richer in role playing material than almost anythign else on the character sheet-tossing up situatations so black and white as the original post (kill them all, or everyone dies, no options) just make players want to drop that disadvantage as they feel they'll just get hosed in the future for having it.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

This is one of the things that I thought I would see for CVK heroes. Instead this has turned into a debate over disads are too cheap or too hard. (Depending on the Gm' date=' either could be.)Not my intent. I wanted to see the creative ideas of CVK characters and personalities of others.[/quote']Well, for what it's worth, I think it's an interesting WWYCD. Similar ones have been done before, mostly with regard to killing a specific and otherwise unstoppable villain to prevent him from destroying the world or the like, but the genocide angle is certainly new (This is similar to the spider-like aliens in David Weber & Steve White's military sci-fi novels In Death Ground and The Shiva Option, where vast hordes of xenophobic carnivores not only see all other species as worthy of extermination; they see them as food. The Terrans and several allied species must stop what seems like an unstoppable tide.)

 

Zl'f has a CvK (Total), but in time of war - especially against extraterrestrial genocidal invaders - I think she'd discard that and kill as necessary. She might break down afterwards (or even during), but she'd do it to the best of her abilities as long as she could. Admittedly such a situation is way outside an optimal use of her abilities - a common hand grenade is more lethal than she is - but she'd find a way to do something useful to protect her life and the life of her loved ones. She certainly wouldn't shirk helping the war effort.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Maybe psychologcal problems have raminifcations more than which attack the PC tosses. Trying to save those knocked out mooks from the self destructing or burning villains lair' date=' for example. [/quote']Precisely. It's not just a matter of "don't throw potentially lethal attacks"; it's also not allowing the bad guys to die through deliberate negligence.

 

If you'd consider this unrealistic, consider that in Iraq a while back a medic was shot by a sniper (and it was taped by the sniper's comrades). Only his bulletproof vest saved him. When the sniper was subsequently wounded and captured by the medic's squadmates, the medic treated the gunman's wounds. According to some, the options should have been "Kill the sniper and/or let him die" or "Let him go." There was a real-life third way.

[Clonus]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

So if you were in a game and the GM claimed it was 4-color' date=' and in one adventure, Gigaton comes running to the heroes claiming Dr. Destroyer has gone mad and wants to blow up the world, and the only way to stop him is to kill him, you'd quit right there and then? If so, yikes, your GM's must last like 3 sessions. If not, what's the difference in the scenarios as presented? [/quote']

 

Well in the Doctor Destroyer case there's only one guy to kill. You don't have to devote years to hunting down and eliminating a hundred thousand guys. In the Doctor Destroyer case there are also actually alternative solutions than killing the guy no matter what Gigaton says. In fact if Gigaton says it, then it's probably a setup and actually "killing" Doctor D will be what destroys the world.

[Enforcer84]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Okay let's break down the actual recipe. We have:

1. Harbinger warning that someone/thing bunch of ones or things are coming to destroy all life on Earth, and says to the PC's "Kill it or it will kill you"

2. World ending threat.

 

Now my first example with the blue aliens was admittedly made up, but would still fit golden age in my estimation. My second example is taken from a silver age comic, so I can say with relative authority that it's a silver age scenario.

 

The part that is confusing me, is how is either of those different than what the OP suggested? I realize in the midst of my posting I forgot some of the OP, and didn't realize the aliens were already here mauling the humans. If we rewind a bit to before the world ending threat gets here (which may be the basis of your argument as to why it would be Iron Age in which case I would agree) it could fall into any "age".

 

Oh exactly, the situation could show up in any "Age", that wasn't my problem.

But to be factual, Yes Galactus was Silver age, but the solution to him was Silver age. He was fought, proven difficult to defeat and then threatened with the ultimate Nulifier by Reed Richards. And he was on his way. I'll also needlessly point out that Reed also argued successully to have the planet eater freed from a death sentence passed down on him by survivors of the planets he'd eaten. Very Silver age.

 

In the Authority, by contrast, when the "Planet Maker" or as they liked to call it, God, showed up to fix or undo what it had wrought. Electrocuted it. Killing it in one panel. That is Iron Age.

 

It's not the threat that's Golden Age, Silver Age, or Iron Age. It's the responses. And if Silver Age players are responding to an Iron Age GM, then what you have is a recipe (love that analogy!) for angry players.

Similarly if a Silver Age GM tries that on Iron Age players and they wipe out an entire race rather than seek to find another way then you have Unhappy GM syndrome.

 

I am assuming that in all the WWYCD scenarios that it is a game you are familiar with with a GM you've been gaming with. Odds are, the "Age" has been set before this and the responses should take that into consideration.

 

Others read the WWYCD threads and, IMO, assume a brand new game with old characters. My GM wouldn't disallow non-genocidal solutions, and probably wouldn't allow PsiQueen to mindwipe the entire race either.

[Checkmate]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Precisely. It's not just a matter of "don't throw potentially lethal attacks"; it's also not allowing the bad guys to die through deliberate negligence.

Okay I agree this would limit a character ("I need to capture the Supreme Serpent but I can't let those agents die!") but as a GM if I say the building is about to collapse on some VIPER agents, will I again be accused of "Throwing the disad in the players faces"?

 

If the answer is yes, I renew my argument. if the answer is no, then what's the difference between this and the scenario presented?

 

 

Again I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I want to make my argument perfectly clear. It's not that I think CvK is NEVER a valid limitation. I can think of thousands of ways this could limit a character. Treb's is an excellent example.

 

My argument is this: If you just want to RP the personality of someone with a CvK (or any other disad for that matter) without having it actually tested in game, I think you should just RP it and not get any benefit from it.

[Checkmate]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Well in the Doctor Destroyer case there's only one guy to kill. You don't have to devote years to hunting down and eliminating a hundred thousand guys.

How long has Dr. D. been operating without ever having been captured? How long did he hide when he didn't want to be found? So you could devote years to hunting him down. He also has a private army of both people and robots so there could be a hundred thousand enemies, but none of this is really the point. You're getting hung up on the example and missing the argument.

 

In the Doctor Destroyer case there are also actually alternative solutions than killing the guy no matter what Gigaton says. In fact if Gigaton says it' date=' then it's probably a setup and actually "killing" Doctor D will be what destroys the world.[/quote']

Thanks, I couldn't have stated my point any better than this

[incrdbil]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Okay I agree this would limit a character ("I need to capture the Supreme Serpent but I can't let those agents die!") but as a GM if I say the building is about to collapse on some VIPER agents' date=' will I again be accused of "Throwing the disad in the players faces"? [/quote']

 

I wouldnt see why. Thats a natural, logical complications of a disadvantage that can come up in any scenario--while the scenario that starts the thread is a much more elaborate construction that seems primarily to be a CvK morality play thats only going to be of much focus to the CvK players..

 

 

 

My argument is this: If you just want to RP the personality of someone with a CvK (or any other disad for that matter) without having it actually tested in game, I think you should just RP it and not get any benefit from it.

 

Agreed, but there are ways for the GM to get mileage out of a CvK if a player isnt already voluntarily doing it without setting up such a scenario that seems so targeted to the PC.

[Trebuchet]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Okay I agree this would limit a character ("I need to capture the Supreme Serpent but I can't let those agents die!") but as a GM if I say the building is about to collapse on some VIPER agents' date=' will I again be accused of "Throwing the disad in the players faces"?[/quote']If it happened every other week, I could see that happening. If it happens once in a while, I can't see any legitimate reason for players to gripe (not that some players actually need a legitimate reason to gripe).

 

In your example, the choices might not be so black and white either. It might not be a choice not between letting the Supreme Serpent escape or rescuing the VIPER agents from the burning building; it might just be between letting the agents die and saving them.

 

If the answer is yes, I renew my argument. if the answer is no, then what's the difference between this and the scenario presented?

Ultimately, it's because this WWYCD scenario is about the difference between murder and war. Society generally frowns on the former; legitimizes the latter.

 

Again I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea. I want to make my argument perfectly clear. It's not that I think CvK is NEVER a valid limitation. I can think of thousands of ways this could limit a character. Treb's is an excellent example.

 

My argument is this: If you just want to RP the personality of someone with a CvK (or any other disad for that matter) without having it actually tested in game, I think you should just RP it and not get any benefit from it.

Writing them down accomplishes two things: 1) It reminds both player and GM of what those Disads are; 2) If the character has gotten points for it, he doesn't have much room to complain when it does occasionally show up in game. I still feel that ideally this Disad, like many other PsychLims, should primarily be RP'd by the player and the GM should seldom if ever need to throw it at them.

 

If the levels of CvK described in 5ER don't quite match what the player had in mind, then he can write up a new PsychLim to better describe it (perhaps "Pacifist"), just RP it as you suggested, or use the 0-point option from the old Adventurer's Club magazine years ago - Reluctance to Kill; meaning the character could kill but generally opts not to not because of lofty ideals but because killing causes all kinds of negative consequences (legal, criminal, and/or public relations). I'd put myself in this category.

[Wanderer]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

If the levels of CvK described in 5ER don't quite match what the player had in mind' date=' then he can write up a new PsychLim to better describe it (perhaps "Pacifist"), just RP it as you suggested, or use the 0-point option from the old Adventurer's Club magazine years ago - Reluctance to Kill; meaning the character could kill but generally opts not to not because of lofty ideals but because killing causes all kinds of negative consequences (legal, criminal, and/or public relations). I'd put myself in this category.[/quote']

 

IMO and experience, some rather toned-down CvK versions may be playable which express some reasonable moral restraint in use of lethal force, but do not tie down the character's hands to do what's necessary: e.g. slightly modified variants from the Master Lists of Disadvantages:

 

Prefers Not To Kill (Common, Moderate: 10 Points): This Disadvantage indicates that the character is willing to use lethal force when necessary -- but that is still definitely rare in the character's opinion. The character does have moral objections to killing, but realizes that sometimes it may be necessary. Such a character is willing to fight and do injury, but in a moment where the decision is "Kill/Don't Kill", this character will generally choose "Don't Kill", unless the situation is such that not killing is clearly the worse of two evils. At that point, the character will not hesitate before killing.

 

Will Not Kill In Cold Blood (Uncommon, Strong: 10 pts): The character with this Disadvantage has no qualms about using lethal force in combat. Nor does he hesitate to use "excessive" force (bringing a gun to a knife fight, for example). However, he draws a very distinct line between killing to survive and murder. The character will accept genuine surrender, and won't put an extra shot into a downed opponent "just to make sure", he doesn't fire on non-combatants, and won't make lethal booby-traps, etc. It could be a genuine moral decision on his part, or a superstitious fear that something bad will happen if he kills in cold blood, or even a promise to someone he respects.

 

These I'm quite at ease to use as a player, and have no qualms to see in play as GM. I would have severe reservations about allowing a Com Tot CvK unless it's absolutely necessary and central to the character's personality and background (i.e. the character's extreme dedication to pacifism is a defining feature).

[ghost-angel]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

Okay I agree this would limit a character ("I need to capture the Supreme Serpent but I can't let those agents die!") but as a GM if I say the building is about to collapse on some VIPER agents, will I again be accused of "Throwing the disad in the players faces"?

 

If the answer is yes, I renew my argument. if the answer is no, then what's the difference between this and the scenario presented?

 

No - you're providing an opportunity for the Hero's to make a Heroic Decision... capture the Bad Guy, or save some lives. Tough choice, especially if those lives are of people who 10 seconds ago were aiming a rocket launcher at you.

 

The OP is not providing an Heroic opportunities to showcase how the Disad like CVK would cause the character to act.

[Great Beyond]

Re: WWYCD Genocide - or Genocide?

 

To the nay sayers and table flippers - this isn't that unreasonable a scenario. For the sake of argument, lets say I'm a huge Doctor Who fan and think "Hey, wouldnt it be great to have some Daleks show up and start tearing up the city!" There's no reasoning with them. Any attempts to get all touchy-feely Picard "We're all the same, there's no reason to do this! Lets live together in peace!" will end in a one word response from the Daleks.

 

Sure there's plenty of room for the players to run around and try and find The Big Reset Button to send them all back to their home dimension (or whatever), but there is going to have to be some beatdown along the way. Meanwhile, it's going to be real ugly outside, with lots of "EXTERMINATE!" going on.

 

It seems to me to me that the key is in how you handle things. For instance

 

Scarlet Arrow, who actually has a "wont kill, period" disad wouldnt be fighting. She would be doing damage control and clean up, saving people the best she could. (It also fits that she's wildly inappropreate to deal with a large scale planetary invasion. She'd be doing that, disads aside)

 

Great Beyond brings more firepower and diversity to the table to deal with things, but she'd still be most efficiant at disabling and subduing instead of out and out killing. Freezinng the aliens in a block of ice in one shot is much easier than dragging things out by having to fight.

 

Natasha, on the other hand wouldnt be fighting - not because of any pacifism, but because she's a Super Genius, and would be much better suited to working overtime to figure out where The Big Reset Button is and how to flip it, or building her own Put Them In Another Dimension ray to zap the aliens away.