Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

[csyphrett]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

I must be at the low end of experience with other playing groups. Everyone I have seen with this type of schism fell apart in two sessions.

CES

[input.jack]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

If I want to play an anti-hero who prefers killing bad guys over imprisoning them and can't stand moralist hypocrites' date=' and my buddy wants to play a boyscout who'll take into custody anybody who does anything wrong, we have two options. [/quote']

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Why is the character who has a strong sense of right and wrong automatically the "moralist hypocrite"? A hypocrite is one who says they believe one thing, but actually believes something else. (Or takes actions that reveal their morality to be only a facade or convenience).

 

Ive played characters at different ends of the spectrum. I prefer not to play casual killers, because (1) I think theyre actually self-deluded villains (I see the Punisher as a hypocrite; he believes he kills only murderers and criminals, but he himself is a murderer and a criminal. Why has he not killed himself?), and (2) it gets exponentially more difficult to elude capture the more dead bodies you leave in your wake.

 

One character that Ive played, and written about here quite a bit, is a young Superman-type character named Guardian Alpha. He has a very strong sense of right and wrong, and while he does mess up occasionally, being only Human (more or less), he has very clear, well defined ideals and morality on the killing issue.

 

GA has never had to kill anyone. He expects that he never will. He acknowledges that it is a possibility, but for him, it is a last resort. (A situation where someone had a hostage is about the only time he could see it happening). He, personally, has a lot of options available to him, in the form of heat vision, freeze breath, super-breath, being able to move at blinding speed for a split second, striking the groujnd for shockwaves, and so on. So he will NOT take a sentient life if there is any other way he can think of to defeat the villain at hand.

 

Guardian Alpha also believes that other people, -especially- "superheroes", should not kill unless no other option is available. A team-mate who killed as a matter of course, PC or NPC, would have to deal with Guardian Alpha once it came to light.

 

In one of their more recent adventures, Troubleshooter went into a building where we knew there were some Humanocentric extremists, who had captured a young Mutant, and were torturing her (for fun) prior to killing her. She also happened to be a team mate of ours. Guardian Alpha hovered nearby while Troubleshooter went in, since Troubleshooter had already established an undercover persona that had infiltrated this group, and we hoped he could bluff his way to getting her out.

 

It failed.

 

Before Guardian Alpha had a chance to do anything about it, Troubleshooter shot and killed three of the men, and wounded another. Then Guardian Alpha got in there and took out the rest.

 

Guardian Alpha and Troubleshooter had a looooong talk about what had happened. Guardian Alpha had a serious problem with the fact that Troubleshooter had killed three people. But he also acknowledged that Troubleshooter had been alone in a room of hostiles, and he was not bullet-proof, and that made Troubleshooter's options very much different from his own.

 

Ultimately, Guardian Alpha and Troubleshooter both agreed that everyone woudl make a full and complete report, and that Troubleshooter would present himself for formal review to the US agency that sponsors our law enforcement credentials.

 

Just like a cop after a shooting.

 

Guardian Alpha was NOT about to just let Troubleshooter walk away after having killed three people, but on the other hand he acknowledged that Troubleshooter was in a situation where his options were quite limited. Had Troubleshooter not gotten the drop on those men, they would have killed him. (Han fired first)

 

Had Troubleshooter tried to flee the city, laugh the incident off, or disappear, Guardian Alpha would have felt duty-bound to go after him and bring him in.

 

(For the record, the review board decided that Troubleshooter had been involved in a "righteous shooting", and that there was no cause for censure or punishment. The incident was duly logged, and we all moved on. It was a memorable incident, and sparked some very intense, very rewarding, rather difficult roleplay as Guardian Alpha and Troubleshooter both had to come to terms with each other).

 

Now, I ask you, in what way is Guardian Alpha a "moralist hypocrite"?

[Tonio]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

GAH! That was my bad... that was meant to be from the character's perspective, not mine! As in: VigilanteMan says, "I can't stand all you moralist hypocrites!"; not: Tonio says, "VigilanteMan can't stand moralist hypocrites". I do NOT consider BoyScout characters to be moralist hypocrites by default. Some are, just like some Vigilante types are just rebels without a cause, mean just cuz they enjoy it, and really villains who kill only bad guys as an excuse.

[ThothAmon]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

The caveat in these discussions is the idea of realism in a genre where people shoot laser beams from their eyes.

 

The pure Boy Scout is a concept that brings a ton of baggage and has the potential to be laughable. The nearest real-world analogy is the cop who has never fired his gun - an extreme rarity if not a hoary old cliche. I often consider that Boy Scouts are blinkered. I do, however, appreciate those who are prepared to assume such responsibilities and roles because the world needs heroes.

 

The pure Slasher Vigilante is also weighed down with baggage and just as laughable. Sure, people get away with multiple murders in real life - they're called serial killers (or politicians) and they are usually pursued fiercely then shoved onto Death Row (or retire to Martha's Vineyard) when caught. Some bad guys don't deserve to live. It's how you distinguish that kind from the rest that makes the difference.

 

Realism means grey areas, value judgements, compromises, consequences, regrets and mistakes. If the GM has stated that such realism is the order of the day, anyone who comes to the table looking to play one of the aforementioned character extremes had better be prepared for the party games. Likewise the GM had better be open to exploring those character conflicts. Coming to the table without that preparation will waste everyone's time.

[Lucius]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Wow, Superman is a bigger moron than I had pegged him for.

 

Just another reason I will never be a DC reader. CvK is just too stupid to imagine IMO.

 

TB

 

While I am not that fond of DC or Superman, I have to disagree. I don’t think Code Vs Killing is “too stupid to imagine” especially not for a character like Superman. In fact, for a character with that kind of power, it makes a lot of sense to take such an oath and follow it strictly.

 

Yes' date=' far better to have "heroes" like the Punisher shooting jaywalkers.[/quote']

 

On the other hand, pretending that the only alternative to a Superman style absolute Code against Killing is to gun down jaywalkers and litterbugs is – well, if not quite “too stupid to imagine” I have to say it’s pretty dumb. I don’t know about you, but I live on a planet with plenty of people on it who don’t have any Code against Killing – I was in the U.S. military, so you KNOW that I for example don’t – and I don’t see jaywalkers getting shot on a regular basis. Or even getting run down, although they get honked at occasionally.

 

 

This reminds me a little of the game I am playing in. However, if I’m going to talk about it, maybe I need to start a thread rather than hijacking one….

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The Palindromedary has Code Vs Killing at only one end….

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Some bad guys don't deserve to live. It's how you distinguish that kind from the rest that makes the difference.

 

A person who decides who lives and who dies, then implements those decisions, without legal authority is also a murderer. Characters who kill in self-defense are quite different. Superman has never berated a police officer or soldier for firing a weapon with lethal intent where it was ustified by the circumstances. Even at the height of the Silver Age, Superboy demonstrated an understanding of Star Boy's situation when he killed an opponent.

 

The character who puts a bullet in the head of every downed adversary and expects to keep getting away with this is, to me, just as unrealistic and laughable as the character who considers anyone who takes a life, intentionally or acidentally, under any circumstances a "murderer".

[Lucius]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

 

The character who puts a bullet in the head of every downed adversary and expects to keep getting away with this is, to me, just as unrealistic and laughable as the character who considers anyone who takes a life, intentionally or acidentally, under any circumstances a "murderer".

 

I think we're in agreement on this.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary is of two minds about it.

[Kal'El Wayne]

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

There's no need to modify anything.

 

The Mutant Blaster has no need to kill because he has highly effective non-lethal attacks.

 

The Magic Blaster has no need to kill because she has highly effective non-lethal attacks.

 

Both of these characters consider killing to be wrong, so they vow never to kill, at least not if there's any chance of a non-lethal solution.

 

The Tech-Scrapper has only his equipment, military weaponry, and none of this gives him much chance of a non-lethal takedown. But, because he's not a complete psychopath, he'll usually shoot an arm or a leg rather than go immediately for a headshot.

 

The Tech-Mastermind has mainly support power, healing his teammates and doing whatever it takes to fulfil the programming that he was given. If this means a villain dies, then so be it.

 

Neither of these latter two characters are going out there to kill, but they will if they have to. They respect the strong morals of the Blasters, but they cannot follow such a rigid oath, because they do not have the sheer non-lethal power of the Blasters. Sometimes they just need to defend themselves or innocents.