Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

[nexus]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I think it would be arguably realistic for the Joker to have been "killed while resisting arrest" or "accidentally overdosed" in Arkham a long time ago.

[Vondy]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I think it would be arguably realistic for the Joker to have been "killed while resisting arrest" or "accidentally overdosed" in Arkham a long time ago.

 

Well, sir. I'm not sure. I found him there with his head in the toilet bowl, just like that. I think one of the other inmates got a little carried away. That's right, sir. Death by swirlee. Yes, sir. Its bizarre, but this is an asylum after all. No, sir. I'm not sure why there is a bat-icon on the flusher...

[nexus]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I didn't mean by Batman but by "normals". Batman might have "higher standards" by why does everyone else? What is the Joker's body count by now?

 

Actually why hasn't gotten the death penalty by now?

[Vondy]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I didn't mean by Batman but by "normals". Batman might have "higher standards" by why does everyone else? What is the Joker's body count by now?

 

Actually why hasn't gotten the death penalty by now?

 

I got the normals part and I'm not sure why he wasn't accidentally scheduled for a full frontal lobotomy, either. At the same time, I had this line "Quick Robin! The Bat Swirlee!" pop into my head. Don't ask why. It makes no sense.

 

I think the explanation is that he got off on an insanity plea, thus no death penalty The problem is, in terms of understanding the consequences of his actions, the Joker is legally sane. He does understand the consequences.

[Yansuf]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Superman's original appearances, and that of Batman not long after, back in 1938, were the spearhead of a new genre. Those early footsteps were a bit shakey, as the writers and artists tried to find their footing in this new kind of heroic storytelling. The adherance to a higher moral code is what seperates Superman and Batman from earlier masked adventurers and Pulp heroes like The Shadow, Spyder (Master of Men), and Doc Savage. All of the pulp-era heroes were willing to plug a mook or throw an anarchist off a cliff. They were hard-boiled, tough, no-nonsense types.

 

This may be a quibble. but Doc Savage had a code against killing. I cannot remember a single episode where he deliberately killed anyone.

Of course, many of his enemies died in the death traps that they set for Doc, but he always tried to save them.

[Yansuf]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I think the explanation is that he got off on an insanity plea' date=' thus no death penalty The problem is, in terms of understanding the consequences of his actions, the Joker is legally sane. He does understand the consequences. [/quote']

 

Of course he got off with an insanity plea; if not he would be in prison, not an asylum!

 

In modern times, he could be ruled legally sane and not get the death penalty by simply making Gotham City in a state that does not have the death penalty.

But then he would be sentenced to prison, not Arkham.

[Clonus]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

This may be a quibble. but Doc Savage had a code against killing.

 

He was reluctant to kill because there was no point in lobotomising a dead man. (To be fair Docs lobotomies were superscience lobotomies way better than the real things). On the other hand Monk and Ham could throw a captured bad guy off the plane and Doc would react as if they were naughty school boys.

[Badger]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I also have problems with the idea that "too much Good is Evil", which seems to be a part of the system youre wanting to incorporate. Yes, its possible for people with "good intentions" to become authoritarian dictators. But its also possible to always do what you think is right, and thus never take the step across that line because you KNOW its wrong to do so.

 

One of the things that makes Superman a hero is that, despite his almost limitless power, he has never tried to take the fundamental right of free will away from the people.

 

 

Have to agree. The "too much Good" type in question usually will try to take away free will which is an Evil act. So instead of going up the ladder, he would slip down. So it doesnt really equate. In fact they might be MORE evil.

[Badger]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

There are some that might argue with good reason that Supes' dedication to his Boy Scout ideal may look rather inhuman and kinda psycho in some aspects. Cfr. when he refused even to try and kill the cosmically-empowered Emperor Joker who was moments away from snuffing out all of Reality. Someone who puts his own moral grandstanding before the salvation of the world is not someone that I'd define well-adjusted or having a trustworthy scale of priorities, from a human PoV.

 

Therefore, he may actually be rather a good example of how "Good" gone too far may warp one away from humanity. Fiat Justitia, Pereat Mundus (let justice be done, the world may perish).

 

Well, I do have to admit that is an interesting take. I have to admit I never take a CvK for a character myself. Not fun for me. And no matter how noble or questionable the character I like to have that last resort "Killing is the only way to solve this" option. In fact, I have had a character who barely tolerated the resident Boy Scout considering the "idiot" very disillusioned. (that can make for interesting interaction. )

[Badger]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

All of your too far examples are' date=' to me, descriptions of Evil behavior. They just happen to be Evil acts taken for what the actor believes to be a Good cause. I'm not in your game, and you can of course do as you want in your setting; still, from my point of view, thinking that what your doing is Good doesn't make it so. Mass murderers, tyrants, thugs and petty bullies may believe that they're in the right; in my experience they generally do. Still, if there is objective Good and Evil, they are not playing on the side of the Angels.[/quote']

 

Hmm, in my experience, I'd have to say, indeed, nearly everyone "believes" they are the good guy. Strange, as some of that may seem.

[Badger]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Perhaps if we called these traits something like, oh, I don't know, "lawful", "neutral", and "chaotic"...

 

ARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

 

 

[OddHat]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

On the whole "Power Corrupts" aspect of this discussion, I'd suggest that the axiom has about as much meaning as the majority of other pithy catch phrases.

 

"If the bar ain't bendin, you're just pretendin'!"

 

"If you can't knock of a dozen chin ups, you're too fat or too weak!"

 

"If you ain't first, you're last!"

 

All are partially true, interpreted correctly in the right context. Out of context, their truth value is close to zero.

 

Power corrupts? That refers to political / social power, and even then it's debatable. "Power allows a corrupt person to indulge his already existing proclivities" is more accurate imo, but less pithy.

 

As to the power to beat someone up, or to kill, I don't agree that physical power in and of itself corrupts. Violent crime is no higher among martial artists or legal gun owners than the population in general. IIRC, it's somewhat lower.

 

Abusers may attack the vulnerable; that's usually social power at work, not physical power by itself. It's also a case of the "corruption" having existed before the power was present, then being expressed when the opportunity arose.

 

You can go into the issue of "What if we could kill without immediate consequences?" That's a popular power fantasy, and might be fair fodder for a game. The answer would come down to your preferred view of human nature; getting people to agree on that is next to impossible.

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

However, let's take a look at it as it *would* tend to apply in a superhero world.

 

You're tooling around the city with the power to lift skyscrapers and suck down tank shells with impunity. You've been stopping crimes as they happen, non-violently, but keep seeing crooks get away with it.

 

Now, there's an outcry against crime for whatever reason... something's happened, something horrible, that you could stop.

 

Better yet, that you could stop for good. Let's say that the Joker gets out, and that he's going to murder another couple dozen people before being caught again... but you can 'accidentally' kill him while you're trying to capture him.

 

All it would take is bending your morals that one little bit... and he deserves it, doesn't he?

 

Would you be willing to take that little step, and if you do, how far would you go to make the world a better place? When have you gone too far in trying to improve the world?

 

To me, that's a perfectly valid theme for a game, and one I'd love to get a chance to play in some time.

[Dead guy on tab]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

On the whole "Power Corrupts" aspect of this discussion, I'd suggest that the axiom has about as much meaning as the majority of other pithy catch phrases.

 

"If the bar ain't bendin, you're just pretendin'!"

 

"If you can't knock of a dozen chin ups, you're too fat or too weak!"

 

"If you ain't first, you're last!"

 

All are partially true, interpreted correctly in the right context. Out of context, their truth value is close to zero.

 

Power corrupts? That refers to political / social power, and even then it's debatable. "Power allows a corrupt person to indulge his already existing proclivities" is more accurate imo, but less pithy.

 

As to the power to beat someone up, or to kill, I don't agree that physical power in and of itself corrupts. Violent crime is no higher among martial artists or legal gun owners than the population in general. IIRC, it's somewhat lower.

 

Abusers may attack the vulnerable; that's usually social power at work, not physical power by itself. It's also a case of the "corruption" having existed before the power was present, then being expressed when the opportunity arose.

 

You can go into the issue of "What if we could kill without immediate consequences?" That's a popular power fantasy, and might be fair fodder for a game. The answer would come down to your preferred view of human nature; getting people to agree on that is next to impossible.

 

 

That is one viewpoint. However, history and literature are replete with examples to the contrary. I have offered several examples from comic books where this theme is explored. Examples from literature include the ring of gyges, the invisible man, faust, the picture of dorian gray, and the lord of the rings. Does gaining superpowers automatically confer supermoral sense upon the character? I don't think so. I think a character's heroism is present even before he had his radiation accident. That also means his flaws continue to be present. As a GM I place the characters into morally complex situations at times. Shouldn't the character's actions in those difficult situations affect them in the future? When Captain America killed the gun man in spite of his CvK, should he just have gone home and chalked it up to one of those things? If these difficult situations are to be meaningful, there should be aftershocks otherwise it's just the moral conundrum of the day (woo hoo! we saved Hitler (Wings of the Valkyrie)! How many people are going to die this time when Dr. D shows up?) and it can devolve into "How is the GM going to screw the characters this week?". As a GM, I would like to strive for meaningful conflicts without reducing the fun or becoming maudlin (no White Wolf for me thank you very much!).

 

Just my 0.02.

[input.jack]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

 

At the same time, the part of your post that you quoted above is one of the biggest problems I have with "superhero morality." I don't believe their is a higher moral code. Moral is moral; immoral is immoral. We might argue that the subjective ethics of being a superhero is different than the ethics of being a hero because of the extraordinary powers a superhero is imbued with, but I don't by into the notion that superheroes face different moral choices. Its the means they have at their disposal, not the choices they face, that makes them different.

 

In fact, this notion has led me to have the same problem with superhero comics that you (we?) have with iron age comics. Superhero morality is, often-times, misguided and, more to the point, sometimes immoral in its propositions. A superhero has more options than the man on the street, and his powers should abate the need for potentially lethal force significantly, but I don't accept the notion that he's a god who forms a moral exception in the universe.

 

Faced with a situation where his powers don't provide him with a non-lethal option to save an innocent the superhero is faced with the exact same moral equation as the mere mortal who doesn't share his vast powers but could theoretically save an innocent from harm if lethal force was employed. If he fails to make the same decision they would then he's not moral, he's not an exemplar, he's a psychotic, narcissistic madman who puts others in danger because he lives in an ivory tower and won't accept that he's down here with the rest of us.

 

Superheroes are only able to live according to irresponsible (im)moral positions such as "heroes never kill" because they are molly-coddled by their writers and given the greatest super-power of all: writers fiat. I don't think writers need to create situations where a hero, lets say superman, has to kill, but the notion that there is a false moral dichotomy between supers and heroes needs to go. Maybe, instead of risking all existence on an immoral absolute, superman should just be thankful and say: "I'm grateful I've never been faced with a situation where my powers didn't give me an out. I pray to God I never have to make that choice. Those men and women who don't share my abilities and have been confronted with that choice humble me."

 

 

Okay, you talk better than me

 

I agree with you almost completely on these points. I jsut didnt think to say it like that.

 

I dont mean that superheroes have a "higher" moral code than everyone else. Just that they have more of a tendency, inclination, and ability to make the better decisions and do the harder thing which is also the better thing.

 

More options, yeah.

 

Same choices, sure.

 

Superheroes, in order to fulfill the genre, should ON THE WHOLE have more will to do whats right, over whats expedient or whats easy.

 

Also, some characters will naturally take this farther than others.

 

But a "superhero" who is a casual killer is not a hero in my book.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Hmm' date=' in my experience, I'd have to say, indeed, nearly everyone "believes" they are the good guy. [/quote']

 

Not me! Embrace your eeeeeeebil side, sez I!

[OddHat]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

However' date=' let's take a look at it as it *would* tend to apply in a superhero world.[/quote']

 

I'm betting we wouldn't agree on that.

 

You're tooling around the city with the power to lift skyscrapers and suck down tank shells with impunity. You've been stopping crimes as they happen, non-violently, but keep seeing crooks get away with it.

 

A good start.

 

Now, there's an outcry against crime for whatever reason... something's happened, something horrible, that you could stop.

 

That's where writers, and gamers, are going to have some of their disagreements. What can you actually "stop" with your strength and invulnerability? A public, violent crime, sure. No-bid contracts being handed out to campaign contributers? For that, you need Clark Kent, not Superman (something most writers miss).

Better yet, that you could stop for good. Let's say that the Joker gets out, and that he's going to murder another couple dozen people before being caught again... but you can 'accidentally' kill him while you're trying to capture him.

 

The Joker only keeps getting out to kill more scores of people because he's a corporate property, and a writer's darling. If the GM keeps releasing the same mass murderer to prey on the populace, it's not a tough moral question; it's the GM being a dick.

 

All it would take is bending your morals that one little bit... and he deserves it, doesn't he?

 

There's not a real moral question there. The cards are stacked to allow a psychopath to prey, with impunity, forever, unless he's killed, and possibly even then; in a story, the story teller has already decided the outcome. In a game, the GM is railroading the players.

Would you be willing to take that little step, and if you do, how far would you go to make the world a better place? When have you gone too far in trying to improve the world?

 

When you find yourself setting up detention camps, that's probably a sign.

 

Or, less flippantly, sure, it's a valid idea to explore. I don't think it's a different question just because the characters have Superpowers, and I don't think most writers and GMs who try to explore it do a good job, but the idea itself is fair game.

 

To me, that's a perfectly valid theme for a game, and one I'd love to get a chance to play in some time.

 

I was a big fan of the original Squadron Supreme, as well as Miracleman / Marvel Man, Watchmen, Dark Knight, the Ellis Stormwatch and Authority stories, etc. I see the appeal, even if I often dislike the execution.

[OddHat]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

That is one viewpoint. However' date=' history and literature are replete with examples to the contrary.[/quote']

 

Examples of power corrupting? Literature, sure. History, not so much, though it does come down to interpretation.

 

Does gaining superpowers automatically confer supermoral sense upon the character? I don't think so.

 

I don't recall anyone in the thread suggesting that it did. Unless, of course, Super Moral Sense is one of the character's powers. Then it costs around 20 points.

 

I think a character's heroism is present even before he had his radiation accident. That also means his flaws continue to be present.

 

And I'd agree. I'd also see it as "People are flawed", not "Power corrupts".

[jkwleisemann]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Oh, I agree that the *execution* usually leaves something to be desired. For example, while I like the idea of exploring the theme, the Authority as it stands leaves me dead cold.

 

I agree with you that it's not a different question just because you have superpowers. Superpowers simply give you more options to pull it off. In fantasy, for example, killing is expected and most of your combat is faceless, so who really cares? Superhero games, that's the case far less often.

 

Changing the example to overcome the weaknesses pointed out with the brick answering that question, what about the super-mentalist? He can take supervillains and turn them into productive members of society at the drop of a hat. So, is it right to do so...?

 

Granted, all of these can be handled poorly, or with the deck stacked against the characters... though, to a certain extent, stacking the deck to at least *tempt* them strongly should be expected with something like this. They shouldn't be punished for making the 'wrong' choice, though bad things *can* still come of it; you've got no valid debate/argument when there's only one 'right' choice.

 

That's where it gets tricky to handle. Obviously, the players need to be in on it from the get-go.

[input.jack]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

All it would take is bending your morals that one little bit... and he deserves it, doesn't he?

 

Would you be willing to take that little step, and if you do, how far would you go to make the world a better place? When have you gone too far in trying to improve the world?

 

 

Thats exactly what made playing Guardian Alpha fun; those decisions. That dilemma.

 

GA came to believe that once you bend your morals, even a little, you had permanently compromised what you were, and become something lesser. That once you started down that slope, you no longer had the perspective to see where you really were. One little step leads to another.

 

And yet, he was as prone to mistakes and misjudgements as anyone else.

 

Guardian ALpha stopped Troubleshooter from looting the wallets of some goons we had stopped during a robbery attempt. Troubleshooter had to give each one back the $40 or so they each had.

 

Then, after a fight with super-agents on a suspension bridge, Guardian Alpha went into the river and retrieved a pair of super-tech hoverbikes that had been ditched during the fight. And he gave them to Troubleshooter, thinking it might be nice for TS to be able to get around faster.

 

It never occurred to GA that he had made Troubleshooter give back a couple hundred bucks, and then turned around and GAVE him several hundred thousand dollars of someone elses hoverbikes.

 

Oops.

[Clonus]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Oh, I agree that the *execution* usually leaves something to be desired. For example, while I like the idea of exploring the theme, the Authority as it stands leaves me dead cold.

 

I

 

And the Authority accurately depicts how most players would react to such a "dilemma". "OK, I pop his head like a zit. Who's next?"

[OddHat]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Oh' date=' I agree that the *execution* usually leaves something to be desired. For example, while I like the idea of exploring the theme, the Authority as it stands leaves me dead cold.[/quote']

 

I thought the Ellis Authority was pretty good. He understood comics and the themes he was working with, and he kept the satire aspects of the title secondary to the story. The Millar Authority was, imo, mostly violence and torture porn.

 

I agree with you that it's not a different question just because you have superpowers. Superpowers simply give you more options to pull it off. In fantasy, for example, killing is expected and most of your combat is faceless, so who really cares? Superhero games, that's the case far less often.

 

Changing the example to overcome the weaknesses pointed out with the brick answering that question, what about the super-mentalist? He can take supervillains and turn them into productive members of society at the drop of a hat. So, is it right to do so...?

 

I'd say the first paragraph contains the answer to the second. It's as right or wrong as it would be to perform the same action without the use of magic / psionics / super powers. If the bad guy was willing to submit to the psychic surgery and reform, great, it's equivalent to sending him through a good 12 step program. If the bad guy isn't willing to be re-programed, the act is as immoral as any mundane method of brainwashing. The powers involved are special effects; the morality is in the actions performed.

 

Note that I'm not saying that it's an unworthy theme; just that the presence of fantasy elements doesn't change the moral questions, if any, involved.

 

And the Authority accurately depicts how most players would react to such a "dilemma". "OK' date=' I pop his head like a zit. Who's next?"[/quote']

 

Pretty much.

[Vondy]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

Oh, I agree that the *execution* usually leaves something to be desired. For example, while I like the idea of exploring the theme, the Authority as it stands leaves me dead cold.

 

I agree with you that it's not a different question just because you have superpowers. Superpowers simply give you more options to pull it off. In fantasy, for example, killing is expected and most of your combat is faceless, so who really cares? Superhero games, that's the case far less often.

 

Changing the example to overcome the weaknesses pointed out with the brick answering that question, what about the super-mentalist? He can take supervillains and turn them into productive members of society at the drop of a hat. So, is it right to do so...?

 

Granted, all of these can be handled poorly, or with the deck stacked against the characters... though, to a certain extent, stacking the deck to at least *tempt* them strongly should be expected with something like this. They shouldn't be punished for making the 'wrong' choice, though bad things *can* still come of it; you've got no valid debate/argument when there's only one 'right' choice.

 

That's where it gets tricky to handle. Obviously, the players need to be in on it from the get-go.

 

I think its great to explore themes. My issue is prejudging the outcome according to narrow, somewhat dubious set of genre ethics [i'm being extremely polite about this] and across the board assumptions about human nature that have been mechanized as a reward and punishment system. If you're grown up enough to explore the theme, you're grown up enough to roleplay the characters and consequences, and discuss and judge the results for yourselves without such a biased, inflexible system in place.

[nexus]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

I thought the Ellis Authority was pretty good. He understood comics and the themes he was working with, and he kept the satire aspects of the title secondary to the story. The Millar Authority was, imo, mostly violence and torture porn.

 

From Millar!? B-but how!? That's so unlike him!

 

Seriously, yeah that's exactly how I feel about it. Jenny Sparks death pretty much marked the group losing any moral center. Of course, her inevitable return really didn't restore it.

[FenrisUlf]

Re: Idea: Super Hero "Morality scale"

 

However, let's take a look at it as it *would* tend to apply in a superhero world.

 

You're tooling around the city with the power to lift skyscrapers and suck down tank shells with impunity. You've been stopping crimes as they happen, non-violently, but keep seeing crooks get away with it.

 

Now, there's an outcry against crime for whatever reason... something's happened, something horrible, that you could stop.

 

Better yet, that you could stop for good. Let's say that the Joker gets out, and that he's going to murder another couple dozen people before being caught again... but you can 'accidentally' kill him while you're trying to capture him.

 

All it would take is bending your morals that one little bit... and he deserves it, doesn't he?

 

The Joker only keeps getting out to kill more scores of people because he's a corporate property, and a writer's darling. If the GM keeps releasing the same mass murderer to prey on the populace, it's not a tough moral question; it's the GM being a dick.

 

There's not a real moral question there. The cards are stacked to allow a psychopath to prey, with impunity, forever, unless he's killed, and possibly even then; in a story, the story teller has already decided the outcome. In a game, the GM is railroading the players.

 

OT, but I always figured it like this:

 

A character of mine would allow Psycho Killer Guy to go through the justice system once. If, after his first imprisonment (especially if he broke out), he went right back to killing schoolchildren so he could mail their dismembered corpses back to their parents, then my character is going to be snapping his neck and considering it as perfectly justified.

 

Part of me has to agree with something that Penguin said to Robin when Willingham was writing the comic: "Batman isn't Joker's enemy, he's his partner! He makes sure that Joker will always have a safe warm cell waiting for him to rest up in in between his rampages... If the Bat-freak or you had any guts, you'd have wasted [Joker] and me years ago!"