Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JadeFox

Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

Recommended Posts

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Actually' date=' that set of laws is a little more extreme than it might at first sound. If followed strictly, it doesn't merely allow for not actively saving a villain when doing so would endanger a teammate or innocent. It *mandates* using lethal force upon the villain, if such is necessary to save an innocent or teammate.[/quote']

 

This is acknowledged by the Shadowpact team. When they rolled the rules out, they were quite clear that they believed they were being realistic, and had no intention of sugar-coating their intention to protect the civilians first, or of coddling the villains if that put others in danger.

 

In a recent Wonder Woman, she refers to her killing of Max Lord. The person she's talking to says something like "Oh, but you'd never do that again". She comments that, when she fought Medusa on live TV with a sword, and cut her head off, no one batted an eye at her lethal tactics because it was her job to kill mythological monsters. Some monsters don't look as unusual.

 

It also bears noting that Superman made the conscious decision to kill the Phantom Zone prisoners. Even a total CvK doesn't rule the possibility out entirely. It merely sets the level of difficulty one would have in reaching such a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

 

It also bears noting that Superman made the conscious decision to kill the Phantom Zone prisoners. Even a total CvK doesn't rule the possibility out entirely. It merely sets the level of difficulty one would have in reaching such a decision.

 

 

Exactly. When Superman did that, he felt he had no other choice. And that is the only time he will take a life. Thing is, with all his power, he almost always has another option. And that's what I was saying earlier about Antaeus' killing of the Hussein-a-like. He did have another option. Several other options, as it turned out. And, of course, his actions led to a power struggle and civil war in that country, because he wasn't able to set up anything to take the dictator's place. Yes, the idea behind the book was that having great power doesn't make you perfect, and doesn't allow you to solve all the world's problems. Even Superman can't save everybody. He learned that long ago. The difference between him and Antaeus was that Superman could accept his limitations and decided to save as many as he could, while Antaeus just couldn't handle it.

 

Anyway... back to the original topic of the thread: No, in my opinion, PCs do not have a big "PC" stamped on their foreheads, and should be treated by the other PCs exactly as anyone else who takes similar actions would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Anyway... back to the original topic of the thread: No' date=' in my opinion, PCs do not have a big "PC" stamped on their foreheads, and should be treated by the other PCs exactly as anyone else who takes similar actions would.[/quote']

 

 

I disagree. In the interest of storytelling, yes, they should be treated equally. And in any case, you (plural, the players + gm) can most certainly decide to play it that way. But it's also a viable idea to be more lenient in the treatment of other PCs in the interest of getting along while letting every player play the character he wants to play. If I want to play an anti-hero who prefers killing bad guys over imprisoning them and can't stand moralist hypocrites, and my buddy wants to play a boyscout who'll take into custody anybody who does anything wrong, we have two options. We can either choose not to play the characters we want to play, make up new ones that can get along with each other, or we can choose to be

somewhat more lenient with each other, bicker constantly in-character (as opposed to me killing him or him taking me in), and play the characters we really want to play.

 

Neither option is inherently better. If you're really into the storytelling aspect of the game, if you want to feel like you're in an actual comic book, then you should modify your characters (or write up new ones) so that they work for the campaign. If you just wanna have some fun with a bunch of friends, play whatever you want. Anywhere in between, well, do a mix of both. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

I disagree. In the interest of storytelling, yes, they should be treated equally. And in any case, you (plural, the players + gm) can most certainly decide to play it that way. But it's also a viable idea to be more lenient in the treatment of other PCs in the interest of getting along while letting every player play the character he wants to play. If I want to play an anti-hero who prefers killing bad guys over imprisoning them and can't stand moralist hypocrites, and my buddy wants to play a boyscout who'll take into custody anybody who does anything wrong, we have two options. We can either choose not to play the characters we want to play, make up new ones that can get along with each other, or we can choose to be

somewhat more lenient with each other, bicker constantly in-character (as opposed to me killing him or him taking me in), and play the characters we really want to play.

 

If I'm playing the boy scout character who values life, I consider your request that I look the other way and take no action when your character violates those deeply held moral beliefs to be quite clearly asking me not to play the character I really want to play. You are asking for a change from a person who truly believes that killing is morally wrong to one who is prepared to make exceptions to those deeply held moral believes as a matter of convenience.

 

My preferred solution to such controversies is to head them off at the outset with a discussion of campaign tone up front. The choices become:

 

(a) the character that doesn't fit the campaign tone gets tabled for a future campaign, and the player brings in a character that is suitable for the campaign tone.

 

(B) the characters stand, and play out in-character interactions as appropriate to each player. If that means the Boy Scout turns the Vigilante in, so be it. If the Vigilante kills the Boy Scout and the rest of the team turns him in, that's a natural outgrowth of the personalities involved. So be it. This is also a choice of campaign tone, however - it sets a tone where the PC's may be adversaries rather than allies.

 

© a third possibility is that the characters will exist independently. One of the two (depending largely on the rest of the team) decides he can't work within this team structure (or the rest of the team so decides) and leaves (or is booted out). In the past, I have advised playing groups that I expect people to play their characters, but that, if hostilities develop and the characters part ways, I'm going to number each character and throw a die in full view of the entire group. Whoever's number comes up, that's who we follow. Those whose characters remained with that one carry on. Those whose characters are no longer with that group need new characters. The old characters may be followed in a future campaign, but aren't the focus of this one.

 

Neither option is inherently better. If you're really into the storytelling aspect of the game' date=' if you want to feel like you're in an actual comic book, then you should modify your characters (or write up new ones) so that they work for the campaign. If you just wanna have some fun with a bunch of friends, play whatever you want. Anywhere in between, well, do a mix of both. =)[/quote']

 

I suspect most gamers will consider one option inherently better. By the way, why should it be the Boy Scout who is required to modify his character to tolerate the Vigilante's murderous activities, rather than the Vigilante being required to tone down his character to have a greater respect for life, or at least for the beliefs of the Boy Scout? I find that very often, suggestions that "we compromise" are really demands that "you compromise". A true compromise would see changes to both characters, not a one-sided adjustment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Especially since its not uncommon at all for a superteam to voluntarily take its *more* extreme CvK standards as standard RoE, from amongst its members. While the JLA is pretty much "we don't kill", thats hardly because every member has as hefty a CvK as Batman. Aquaman and Wonder Woman sure as hell don't.

 

OTOH, this requires a certain reasonableness on the part of all the players involved. 'Aquaman' acknowledges that with all these teammates present, there's really little need to use lethal force on their enemies. . . while 'Batman' acknowledges that its really bad form to berate his teammates for legitimate activities done outside the purview of the team ( like, say, fighting a civil war in Atlantis ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

If I'm playing the boy scout character who values life' date=' I consider your request that I look the other way and take no action when your character violates those deeply held moral beliefs to be quite clearly asking me not to play the character I really want to play. You are asking for a change from a person who truly believes that killing is morally wrong to one who is prepared to make exceptions to those deeply held moral believes as a matter of convenience.[/quote']

 

I'm asking the *players* to look the other way, not the characters. And not even that... I'm saying it's one viable alternative. And yes, as a matter of convenience... for the *players*, not the characters. I'm not saying "it's ok to ignore the fact that someone who's violating your moral beliefs in the interest of getting along", I'm saying "it's ok to ignore the fact that someone's playing a character that violates the moral beliefs of a character you're playing".

 

Of course, it's also ok to NOT ignore it.

 

I suspect most gamers will consider one option inherently better. By the way' date=' why should it be the Boy Scout who is required to modify his character to tolerate the Vigilante's murderous activities, rather than the Vigilante being required to tone down his character to have a greater respect for life, or at least for the beliefs of the Boy Scout? I find that very often, suggestions that "we compromise" are really demands that "you compromise". A true compromise would see changes to both characters, not a one-sided adjustment.[/quote']

 

Yah, I'm sure most gamers will consider one option to be better, but I'm sure most gamers won't agree on which one option that is. Most "hardcore" gamers, who are really into storytelling and roleplaying, who'll use non-optimal characters because they like the concept, who'll write up a character's story before writing up his stats and powers... they'll probably decide a boyscout and a vigilante can't get along, and someone has to give. Most "arena combat" gamers, who're mostly into the combat aspect of the game, who'll try to squeeze the most out of every character point, who don't buy any noncombat skills... they'll probably decide a boyscout and a vigilante should have infrequent arguments at most. No style of gaming is inherently better, and no decision on how lax to be regarding morality conflicts is inherently better.

 

Also note I haven't suggested the boyscout should modify his character to get along with the vigilante. That's certainly one option. The vigilante could also modify his. Or both could meet halfway. Or both players could look the other way, mostly. Or whatever... as long as the *game* works.

 

Just to be sure, again... I'm not suggesting the only, nor best, way is to have the players look the other way for the most part. I'm only suggesting that's one viable option. Having the players be strict about their characters' moral codes (or lack thereof) is also a viable option. Some people find one more fun than the other. Gamers should always do what's more fun. So find which one of the two (or more?) options is better for you and go with it. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

It's funny/ironic that sometimes heroes who have a strict moral code about killing will be hypertolerant about heroes with ethical lapses in relationships, business or other areas, while those who have a relaxed attitude towards lethal force usage may have a strict code wrt ethical laxity in other areas of superheroing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

The main problem going into this game (I'm also involved with it) is that there were no guidelines. All of these characters were made in response to, hey lets play a super hero game. As such what each person thought of as a super hero was what they made.

 

At this point I'm still not sure what kind of world or environment the game is actually going to be and I think that if the players knew, they may change thier minds about what they want to play all together.

 

When I think "Super Hero Team" I think 4 color. The non-lethal do gooder type.

But vigilante is also a reasonable response to lets play super heros.

 

I just think it would have been nice to know. The character listed above (the shadow caster) was a thought experiment that I was seeking permission of the gm to play. I'm not dead set on it. If this is going to be a lethal game then I'll change him (not Her!) to fit the world better.

 

To clarify, the character is a healer who can protect others and soothe wounds. He can also channel the dark currents of the underworld to transform himself into an element of shadow, in this form he can suck the life essence out of others and supply it to himself and his friends. He has a lethal power but no killing attacks. He does have a transfer body and a drain body wich could be lethal, though I'm not leaning toward a character that would kill oponents. Mostly his powers are geared toward defending and repairing his friends and incapacitating (not killing) oponents. As it is now he wouldn't have a problem with using excessive force if necessary, but would not choose to apply it himself. Wich is not incompatible with the lethal members of the party. Not having a killing attack, and not using one, does not make you a boyscout ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Not having a killing attack' date=' and not using one, does not make you a boyscout ;)[/quote']

 

Quite true.

 

A villain could have a CvK because he doesn't like to "break his toys", or because in his calculation killing is wasteful of resources and tends to result in adverse consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

Quite true.

 

A villain could have a CvK because he doesn't like to "break his toys", or because in his calculation killing is wasteful of resources and tends to result in adverse consequences, both foreseen and unforeseen.

 

*coughJohnSunlightcough*

 

This is why I actually tend to prefer defining a hero's heroism through other Psych Limits than CvK. An aversion to killing does not make a hero, nor does a willingness to kill automatically break one. Then again, I don't generally play in Silver Age genre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

I'm asking the *players* to look the other way' date=' not the characters. And not even that... I'm saying it's one viable alternative. And yes, as a matter of convenience... for the *players*, not the characters. I'm not saying "it's ok to ignore the fact that someone who's violating your moral beliefs in the interest of getting along", I'm saying "it's ok to ignore the fact that someone's playing a character that violates the moral beliefs of a character you're playing".[/quote']

 

If my Boy Scout is standing over a fallen opponent when a vigilante shoots him, that requires the CHARACTER to look the other way. If my Boy Scout leaves the Vigilante with custody of the captured villain, and the captured villain later turns up dead, it is my CHARACTER that has to look the other way.

 

To reiterate "Time to torture the peasant - someone get the Paladin out of the room" is not great gaming, at least in my view.

 

Also note I haven't suggested the boyscout should modify his character to get along with the vigilante. That's certainly one option. The vigilante could also modify his. Or both could meet halfway. Or both players could look the other way' date=' mostly. Or whatever... as long as the *game* works.[/quote']

 

The key to this is a discussion involving the entire group as to what tone is going to be played, so that everyone can build characters according to that agreed tone. Dropping the characters together with no prior consideration of their personalities and moral codes is a great way to get a team that doesn't work and a game that's frustrating instead of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

If my Boy Scout is standing over a fallen opponent when a vigilante shoots him, that requires the CHARACTER to look the other way. If my Boy Scout leaves the Vigilante with custody of the captured villain, and the captured villain later turns up dead, it is my CHARACTER that has to look the other way.

 

To reiterate "Time to torture the peasant - someone get the Paladin out of the room" is not great gaming, at least in my view.

 

If the Boy Scout doesn't react as expected, given his moral code, it could be due to the player's decision to have his character act against his moral code (the character looks the other way), or the player's decision to ignore part of the action in the game he's playing (the player looks the other way).

 

And I completely respect your point of view regarding that not being great gaming. But please bear in mind that some people CAN consider that great gaming, and they'd just be disagreeing with you, not committing some great gaming sin. Some people consider such strict roleplaying as a hindrance to having fun. These people are not lesser gamers, nor munchkins, nor anything of the sort. They simply have different priorities and playing styles.

 

The key to this is a discussion involving the entire group as to what tone is going to be played' date=' so that everyone can build characters according to that agreed tone. Dropping the characters together with no prior consideration of their personalities and moral codes is a great way to get a team that doesn't work and a game that's frustrating instead of fun.[/quote']

 

Right! Only I'd add "playing style" to "tone" there. A 4-color, Golden Age campaign played loosely can have anti-hero, vigilante characters, which the players (not the characters) forgive routinely, if they all agree on that play style. That may not be your cup of tea (well, from your comments, I'm quite sure it's not!), but it might be the group in question's, and it certainly is some people's. I've played in groups like that, and we've all had oodles of fun, and I'm certain we wouldn't have had as much fun if the Punisher fan wouldn't have been able to play his killer vigilante, or the youngest player wouldn't have been able to play his CvK'd Cartoon Man (who eventually went insane when he found out he'd inadvertently killed a villain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Our Party: Explosion waiting to happen

 

If the Boy Scout doesn't react as expected' date=' given his moral code, it could be due to the player's decision to have his character act against his moral code (the character looks the other way), or the player's decision to ignore part of the action in the game he's playing (the player looks the other way).[/quote']

 

If the CVK character is standing there when the vigilante blows away the villain, and does nothing that is the CHARACTER looking the other way. The player could decide his character's CvK does not extend to others' killing. If that reduces the severity of the disadvantage, the character should buy down the disad, but it's legitimate.

 

If the answer is "well, only because it's Charlie's character - if an NPC did the exact same thing I'd take him in", then we have "PC on the Forehead" syndrome. The same great gaming that says "anyone else could be a doppleganger or a werewolf, but not Charlie's character - shackle the villager in silver chains in case he's a werewolf". I prefer (and it is a PREFERENCE, not an objectovely superior playstyle) games where characters have personalities, not videogames where special rules apply to PC's and everyone else is "the enemy" or, at best, scenery.

 

Some people consider such strict roleplaying as a hindrance to having fun. These people are not lesser gamers' date=' nor munchkins, nor anything of the sort. They simply have different priorities and playing styles.[/quote']

 

Again, my preference runs towards role playing (ie the character has a real personality, not a personality that toggles off when it becomes invonvenient), not tactical gaming (if the personality prevents the tactically best option, shut it down until it's no longer an inconvenience). If the character has an "only sometimes" psychological trait, that damages the verissimilitude of the character for me. If I want to play videogames, I have a computer.

 

Right! Only I'd add "playing style" to "tone" there. A 4-color' date=' Golden Age campaign played loosely can have anti-hero, vigilante characters, which the players (not the characters) forgive routinely, if they all agree on that play style.[/quote']

 

If the characters are involved, the characters forgive. Players should be above the game. If Vigilante kills a half dozen villains, and he and BoyScoutMan end up in a scrap that destroys the team, the players shold be able to walk away from the table smiling, even if the characters hate each other. I don't hate the GM because his villain is malevolent. It's part of the game. And PC disagreements can also be part of the game, if this is what the players want. Some don't. But, to me, the answer lies at the player level, making characters who can work together, not at the character level, lobotomizing the characters to conveniently miss the body count Vigilante is racking up because "he's a PC" while defending that "Killing is Worng" personality when an NPC takes similar action.

 

I've played in groups like that' date=' and we've all had oodles of fun, and I'm certain we wouldn't have had as much fun if the Punisher fan wouldn't have been able to play his killer vigilante, or the youngest player wouldn't have been able to play his CvK'd Cartoon Man (who eventually went insane when he found out he'd inadvertently killed a villain).[/quote']

 

And, again, it comes down to having that discussion up front, not finding out two sessions in that PunisherClone expected BoyScout to look the other way, and BoySocutMan was serious when he said use of lethal force would make you as bad as the villains, and he'd hunt you down mercilessly like he would any murdering scumball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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….

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...