A bad Situation(Kind of Long post/rant)

[hybris]

Originally posted by ChuckB

I'm only going with what Patriot told us and based on that , it sounds like the staff was ok working with super-terrorists.

Super-terrorists who have a rather good mentalist (i.e., Mentalla) among their number, though.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Agent X

Come on, Treb. If you got here first you would have been all over Regnak.

Possibly. You've been the voice of reason here, but that doesn't mean nobody else hasn't had some good points as well. In any case we're not the GMs here; this is still ultimately Patriot's call to make.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Good call on the "hindsight" issue. As a GM, you have very limited time to make the call. A few days of posts by others all over the world with time to think it through is very different from a game call made in 15 seconds to keep the game moving.

 

Then you get lots of time to agonize over it, wonder whether you made the right call and ask yourself what ramifications the results should have on the campaign.

 

There seems to be excessive focus on the Ego roll, however. If the character made the roll and proceeded, or never had the limitation in the first place, UN sanctions and similar results would seem no more or less out of place to me. That's why "casual killer" is also a disadvantage - this tends to attract attention in unwanted forms.

 

Ah, see, now I didn't say THAT!

 

Just because the player made the roll or never had the limitation, he woudl still suffer the same consequences - after all, it's a 4-color game.

[Phraze]

Re: Re: Re: One minor point

 

Originally posted by Agent X

Option 2 is the only viable one based on what Patriot has said. One of the things getting to me on this thread is this need for people to say this is only Patriot's side of the story as if we are holding court. Patriot didn't give us someone's name. We don't know this person. Some are acting almost as if Patriot is slandering someone and this is just silly.

 

Patriot posted a concern. Patriot has, as far as I know, never demonstrated a reason for someone to doubt his accounts of his own game. To me, that means you give the guy the presumption that he is telling the truth. I am insulted that people on these boards would just assume that Patriot is not giving us an accurate account. That is way too cynical.

 

This goes double for the sad attempts at psychoanalysis.

 

Since this was posted in response to a response to my post, I figure I'm at least one of the sad psychoanalyzers in question. I don't think I was attempting to psychoanalyze, but merely trying to relate the story to my own experience. I don't think my analysis of the game scenario in question was unreasonable.

1) According to both Patriot and the other player who posted, the building collapse side effect happened maybe only once(?) with a part-time GM several years ago. It's apparently not built-in to the power.

2) The team didn't know about the building collapse until they saw it on the news the next day, so it doesn't seem as if the collapse was intentional or expected.

3) The player was asked about his limitation as far as "Protects Innocents," but there was also a completely different threat to innocents going on at the time (Fiacho threatening the cook), so there may have been some confusion.

I think my original point (and I apologize if it sounded condescending) was that the entire building collapse/UN trial scenario sounded like an outgrowth of a GM-imposed Unintended Consequence in response to a player's attitude. The Unintended Consequence is like the Phillips screwdriver of the GM's repertoire, but it can backfire if the player feels as if he's being singled out or railroaded, as it seems Stellar's player does. Patriot says Stellar's player insists it's all a set-up by Eurostar, and he may be justified in thinking so. After all, the initial set-up felt like some kind of trap, Fiacho was already threatening to kill at least one member of the winery's staff, and none of the team members actually saw the building collapse. For all Stellar knows, Fiacho collapsed the building after their departure to get Stellar in trouble, knowing that something similar had happened years before (maybe a possible retcon if Patriot feels charitable).

I have never been in a campaign that ran 12 years, but I have run a campaign which the players purposely blew up because they felt railroaded by a particular scenario, and I had to play out the consequences. I agree with Trebuchet's list of options for the long-term campaign. The UN trial storyline has a lot of dramatic possibilities, but it also has the potential to wreck a long-running campaign if it's not handled carefully.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Re: Re: Re: One minor point

 

Originally posted by Phraze

Patriot says Stellar's player insists it's all a set-up by Eurostar, and he may be justified in thinking so. After all, the initial set-up felt like some kind of trap, Fiacho was already threatening to kill at least one member of the winery's staff, and none of the team members actually saw the building collapse.

Here's my problem with the actions of Stellar (and to a lesser extent Team Vanguard): They went into a building where Europe's most notorious superterrorists were gathered; a group of villains infamous for their callous killing of innocents. Fiacho grabbed a kitchen worker and threatened to kill him; that hardly sounds like the staff was working for Eurostar (at least voluntarily). So where was the effort to save the winery employees, especially the cook being held? Stellar might even be right that it was all a setup by Eurostar, but that doesn't eliminate the need to save the normals. Even if the winery workers were voluntarily helping Eurostar (highly questionable, especially as Eurostar has one of Earth's most powerful mentalists as a member.), some effort should have to remove the normals to safety. It's not like they were armed goons; and in the lack of solid evidence they were voluntarily serving Eurostar they should have been given the benefit of the doubt. I'm honestly appalled that Team Vanguard didn't insist on going back, with or without Stellar.

 

It was like watching the Rodney King beating. Bad enough you see four LAPD cops beating the crap out of a guy; but just as bad was realizing that another dozen law enforcement officers were watching them do it without intervening.

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Re: Re: One minor point

 

Originally posted by Phraze

I have never been in a campaign that ran 12 years, but I have run a campaign which the players purposely blew up because they felt railroaded by a particular scenario, and I had to play out the consequences. I agree with Trebuchet's list of options for the long-term campaign. The UN trial storyline has a lot of dramatic possibilities, but it also has the potential to wreck a long-running campaign if it's not handled carefully.

And this makes me wonder why, when given a vacuum of information, that we would assume Patriot purposely antagonizes his players. Patriot has been running the same campaign for 12 years! The actions of the character Stellar are wrong on so many levels and I actually did get the impression that he knew his power worked that way.

[DoctorItron]

Re: Re: Re: One minor point

 

Originally posted by Agent X

Option 2 is the only viable one based on what Patriot has said. One of the things getting to me on this thread is this need for people to say this is only Patriot's side of the story as if we are holding court. Patriot didn't give us someone's name. We don't know this person. Some are acting almost as if Patriot is slandering someone and this is just silly.

 

Patriot posted a concern. Patriot has, as far as I know, never demonstrated a reason for someone to doubt his accounts of his own game. To me, that means you give the guy the presumption that he is telling the truth. I am insulted that people on these boards would just assume that Patriot is not giving us an accurate account. That is way too cynical.

 

This goes double for the sad attempts at psychoanalysis.

 

Agent X, I'm with you. My post probably wasn't clear enough: I agree that Option 2 seems like the most accurate option.

 

I presented the other options as possibilities only because I didn't have time to reread all the prior posts - some of the posters have been too venomous for me to waste time rereading all of the things written here.

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, I'll toss in my .02 since Patriot asked for opinions. I didn't read all of the posts b/c things started getting pretty flamey partway through, so forgive me if I repeat what's already been said.

 

Here's what I'd do:

 

Ask the player to leave the group.

 

Here's why:

 

Based on the original post, the Stellar player was told that he might be harming innocents. He rationalized his character's action with a thin excuse. His character would have had no reason to leap to the conclusion that the winery workers were voluntarily working for Eurostar (team has uber-telepath on it, the normals weren't armed goons, and even w/out mind control, people can be controlled by threatening loved ones, the help may not evenr ealized who the hell Eurostar is depending on how public their activity has been, etc., too many possibilities for an experienced super to assume anything), so the excuse doesn't fly. The GM as much as told him not to do it, but he did. So, screw him. Uninvite him to the next session, and NPC Stellar and play out hunting him down like a mad dog and either jailing him or having Eurostar take revenge on him.

 

Bottom line, the guy wanted to toss in a monkey wrench. He was playing selfishly and immaturely, and the reason doesn't really matter.

 

What I would have done:

 

Told the player "Stelllar decides not to do that, because he realizes he may kill some of the winery staff." If the player became a problem at that point, I'd wrap for the night, talk to him, and then boot him if the underlying problem hadn't been resolved.

 

But this isn't "What should I have done?" Patriot made a judgement call to keep things moving, so no fair second-guessing him, not being there. That's his job as GM. Since the damage has been done, the only options are to either let the player in question take the game in a new direction, or boot him and maintain the GM's direction.

[Cybernaut]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Well, I'll toss in my .02 since Patriot asked for opinions.

What I would have done:

 

Told the player "Stelllar decides not to do that, because he realizes he may kill some of the winery staff." If the player became a problem at that point, I'd wrap for the night, talk to him, and then boot him if the underlying problem hadn't been resolved.

 

But this isn't "What should I have done?" Patriot made a judgement call to keep things moving, so no fair second-guessing him, not being there. That's his job as GM. Since the damage has been done, the only options are to either let the player in question take the game in a new direction, or boot him and maintain the GM's direction.

I agree. Talk to the player in private, lay everything out for him in no uncertain terms, and if he's not contrite tell him to take a hike.

[Lupus]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost

Told the player "Stelllar decides not to do that, because he realizes he may kill some of the winery staff."

Is it wrong that, all the way through this thread, I keep on reading that as 'whinery staff?' I just can't help it. My mind keeps inserting the extra 'h.'

[William Bushway]

If you can convince the player to retire the character, or the player leaves the group, sounds like the character is ripe for a "Parralax Turn" - Hero's power sets him so far above the masses that he begins to lose touch. This can be accompanied by the "Authority Complex," where the hero believes so firmly in his own infallibility that he grows tired and resentful of the "stupid" things that normal people do to each other that he feels he has to step in and save them from themselves. Definite villain possibilities, there.

[J4y]

It was like watching the Rodney King beating. Bad enough you see four LAPD cops beating the crap out of a guy; but just as bad was realizing that another dozen law enforcement officers were watching them do it without intervening.

 

That really has nothing to do with this. This is Eurostar. It's more like the cops watching someone walk around randomly shooting people to death because he has a grenade in his hand that would kill the hostage he has on a leash. This is why hostages just shouldn't be used unless they're the focus of the story, the fact is that they're simply collatoral damage, it is impossible to superheroically deal with random hostages. If negotiating with murdering supervillians who took hostages was even an option then the supervillians would simply rig up a system where they ALWAYS have some hostages scattered at various bases or what have you that will die if they're intefered with and the game is hosed. The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.

 

C'mon, this is Eurostar, each member has the power of a modern army. You don't let an army or a terrorist organization wander around your country doing whatever it pleases because they threaten to take a civilian hostage! LOL!

 

As for teleporting out and taking the floor, well *I* certainly wouldn't expect anyone to die from that. If he was trying to kill civilians I imagine a 750pt character could have found a more effective method.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by J4y

It was like watching the Rodney King beating. Bad enough you see four LAPD cops beating the crap out of a guy; but just as bad was realizing that another dozen law enforcement officers were watching them do it without intervening.

 

That really has nothing to do with this. This is Eurostar. It's more like the cops watching someone walk around randomly shooting people to death because he has a grenade in his hand that would kill the hostage he has on a leash. This is why hostages just shouldn't be used unless they're the focus of the story, the fact is that they're simply collatoral damage, it is impossible to superheroically deal with random hostages. If negotiating with murdering supervillians who took hostages was even an option then the supervillians would simply rig up a system where they ALWAYS have some hostages scattered at various bases or what have you that will die if they're intefered with and the game is hosed. The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.

 

C'mon, this is Eurostar, each member has the power of a modern army. You don't let an army or a terrorist organization wander around your country doing whatever it pleases because they threaten to take a civilian hostage! LOL!

 

As for teleporting out and taking the floor, well *I* certainly wouldn't expect anyone to die from that. If he was trying to kill civilians I imagine a 750pt character could have found a more effective method.

Why wouldn't you expect norms to be harmed if the floor/support structures in a multilevel building were suddenly gone?

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by J4y

The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.

I have to assume you're joking here; because if you're not then you are very, very, scary!

 

*Backs away slowly*

[Lupus]

Originally posted by J4y

That really has nothing to do with this. This is Eurostar. It's more like the cops watching someone walk around randomly shooting people to death because he has a grenade in his hand that would kill the hostage he has on a leash. This is why hostages just shouldn't be used unless they're the focus of the story, the fact is that they're simply collatoral damage, it is impossible to superheroically deal with random hostages. If negotiating with murdering supervillians who took hostages was even an option then the supervillians would simply rig up a system where they ALWAYS have some hostages scattered at various bases or what have you that will die if they're intefered with and the game is hosed. The best course of action for the superheros was to simply kill the hostage and tell Eurostar to stop acting like a bunch of 2 bit hoodlums.

And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.' Superheroes are borderline fascists as it is (how else would you describe people with great power who live by their own moral code and enforce it on others?), so I don't think it's a good idea to push this any further.

 

Others can feel free to interpret the genre in their own way, but in my games, superheroes are held to a higher moral standard (by themselves, by the community, by karma) than anyone else. And the genre supports this. Sometimes they may be faced withs ome very hard choices - but more of than not, when faced with two unpalatable options, they find the third choice. Yes, this means superheroes don't live in the real world. They're a fantasy, and they don't stand up to real-world scrutiny.

 

Note, I'm not counting Image-style character (Wildcats, et al) as superheroes for the purpose of the above discussion. That's because I don't see them as superheroes.

C'mon, this is Eurostar, each member has the power of a modern army. You don't let an army or a terrorist organization wander around your country doing whatever it pleases because they threaten to take a civilian hostage! LOL!

Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.

As for teleporting out and taking the floor, well *I* certainly wouldn't expect anyone to die from that. If he was trying to kill civilians I imagine a 750pt character could have found a more effective method.

No-one's saying he tried to kill the civilians. He just didn't care about them. And yes, if someone teleported a floor out of a building, I'd expect a collapse. Ignorance can't be used here - the guy was warned, and did it anyway.

[Phraze]

Originally posted by Agent X

And this makes me wonder why, when given a vacuum of information, that we would assume Patriot purposely antagonizes his players.

 

This is so not what I said (or meant to say). I said that Stellar's player might have felt railroaded by the scenario, which is not to say that Patriot purposely antagonized him, just that the player could have interpreted the scenario that way. I'm not disturbed by the PC's leaving at that moment. The only immediate threat to the winery staff came through PC anatagonism. Removing the PC's should have removed the danger, to a far greater degree than, say, starting a super-battle would have.

 

I really didn't intend to get into Monday Morning Quarterback thing on the scenario, except to mention that people were acting like the PC was this purposeful killer, when from what I had read, the PC was just acting like an ass and might not have intended to kill anybody. This isn't like driving drunk (oblique Rodney King ref) where you can unintentionally cause real harm in the real world. The GM makes all decisions about the consequences of actions in the game world, and GM's often make consequences worse for players who act like asses. As far as I can tell, it was the GM's decision to collapse the building, setting in motion this whole chain of events. Now nobody's happy: the GM's upset at Stellar, the other players are upset at Stellar, and Stellar feels he was set up. I think we've all been in games which have turned bad, when no one in particular really wanted things to go that way. The thing now is to figure out what went wrong and how to patch things up, and I think Trebuchet's suggestions cover the bases pretty well.

[tesuji]

As for why we would assume he was purposefully antagonizing the players, I doubt anyone said that.

 

I do think, as a general rule, when I only get one side of a situation, it is more productive to analyze the actions of the side REPORTING than to analyze the other side for which you only have the one biased representation.

 

I asked these two questions of Patriot several pages ago and hopefully he will have time to answer sometime soon. The answers will, to me at least, be much much more informative than any further descriptions about how bad, evil or socially uncouth the player-to-be-bashed is.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Ok lets put this is a different perspective...

 

Questions to the Patriot...

 

1. Do you feel the NPC's reactions and severity of their opinions and speed with which events have transpired were at all influenced by your being ticked off at the player?

 

2. What do you see as faults or errors ON YOUR PART in how this was setup and handled so far? Did you do anything wrong? Have you erred? cIf so, how and more over, how will you do better in the future?

[J4y]

And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.'

 

My point is, that ain't supervillians. If villians who can wipe out cities on a whim take hostages as the first action your heros are either going to be perpetually backing off to save single hostages and watching said villians wipe out said cities, or they're going to get their hands bloody.

 

Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.

 

We're not dealing with Bucky the 2-bit hood with a shotgun in a bank but a world class threat. While reasonable means should be taken to protect civilians, you can't seriously think the U.S. would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein threatened to kill one of his maids if they did? It is the policy of superpowers to kill a few to save a lot.

[Zed-F]

Superheroes are held to a higher moral standard (by themselves, by the community, by karma) than anyone else. And the genre supports this. Sometimes they may be faced withs ome very hard choices - but more of than not, when faced with two unpalatable options, they find the third choice.

Entirely correct, in my view. J4y, heroes don't kill a few to save many. They find a way to save everyone, or at least do their best to find it. While that may not be possible or practical in the real world, it IS possible in 4-colour comics, which is what the campaign is. If Stellar had tried to work with the scenario the Patriot presented, Patriot would have made sure he had all the clues to figure out how to get his teammate back without ripping the building apart.

[Korvar]

Originally posted by J4y

We're not dealing with Bucky the 2-bit hood with a shotgun in a bank but a world class threat. While reasonable means should be taken to protect civilians, you can't seriously think the U.S. would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein threatened to kill one of his maids if they did? It is the policy of superpowers to kill a few to save a lot.

 

Superheroes have many, many options available to them that governments do not. Governments can only really use force on others by messy things called "wars" that despite current advertising, are not exactly precise things. The possible harm to Saddam's maid is going to be overshadowed by the harm the invasion will inevitably cause.

 

Superheroes can do all sorts of odd things that may allow them to get hostages out of harm's way, thus negating the threat. Also, their default mode of conflict should have zero civillian casualties. So civilian casualties are going to be more of a concern to a superhero.

 

Plus it's in-genre, dammit.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by J4y

And that just ain't superheroes. Sorry. That's 'fascists in spandex.'

 

My point is, that ain't supervillians. If villians who can wipe out cities on a whim take hostages as the first action your heros are either going to be perpetually backing off to save single hostages and watching said villians wipe out said cities, or they're going to get their hands bloody.

 

Although in the real world, governments will do whatever they can to get a peaceful resolution. They certainly don't advocate shooting the hostages. Now, there may well be fewer terrorists in the world if we did that... but anyone who gave the go-ahead for that move wouldn't survive the next election.

 

We're not dealing with Bucky the 2-bit hood with a shotgun in a bank but a world class threat. While reasonable means should be taken to protect civilians, you can't seriously think the U.S. would have not invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein threatened to kill one of his maids if they did? It is the policy of superpowers to kill a few to save a lot.

 

If the heroes decided to kill a few to save many, then they definitely don't belong in the 4-color genre, or even being called "hero" in my book. If you are playing some special forces campaign that may be acceptable, but not in a super-heroic game. Also, superpowers are not super-powered people. If a superhero is a collection of millions of people in some super-gestalt, then maybe your view might hold true. But different genre again. A group of elected (or whatever) officials making a policy decision are not super-heroes (and not really heroes either, just button pushers - the real heroes are the ones putting their lives on the line, not sending others to kill or die).

 

Look at the comics - especially the ones involving war. Just finished re-reading the avengers/kang story arc. Only two incidents that can be pinned down as killing - and then the ones who die by the heroes hands are combatants themselves - not innocents. Look at Captain America in Avengers 54 (if you have/can find it) - definitely not a "it's only a few lives" type character.

 

You earlier referred to Eurostar as each having the power of an army (or similar). Apparently the 700+ point (I believe that was the amount quoted) player character is in the same book. He had no other option than the one he took?

 

I'm curious about the teleport though - if he's only used it twice, is that a normal side effect or something special (i.e. an intended side-effect of using the power a certain way). That also has a part in the whole story.

 

Like the villain angle (reading the current Thor storyline ).

[J4y]

You keep saying it's not in genre, but the villian's actions aren't either. As I pointed out, you simply cannot take hostages like that or your superheroic 4 color campaign grinds to a halt as Eurostar starts keeping hostages around in various locations in the world and would thus be immune to reprisals by superheros. You can't have 4C superhero players when your villians aren't 4C. DNPCs are for hostages, innocent bystanders to make combat harder work and hostages as the focus of the adventure work, but this seem more like having DNPC: Everyone in the world, which really lets the GM bludgeon the players good and hard at whim.

[Pattern Ghost]

Since when aren't hostages in genre?

 

Since when do we decide what's in genre for someone else's game anyway?

 

The GM warned the player that the action was inappropriate.

 

The player proceeded anyway.

 

Maybe the player thought that the hostage taking was unfair.

 

Does that justify his actions?

 

No.

 

Maybe the GM played the scene out poorly. Maybe he made a snap decision in game, real time, which we could pick apart.

 

That doesn't excuse a disruptive player. The player should have taken it up with the GM out of game.

[Trebuchet]

Let's put this whole incident into a more mundane setting so we can look at it without arguing about the definition of "superhero."

 

A half dozen notorious Al-Qaeda terrorists have captured an LAPD SWAT team member and are holding him hostage. After a careful search, the SWAT team figured out that the terrorists are holed up in a Middle Eastern restaurant. In addition to the terrorists, there may be a dozen or more restaurant employees present as well. It is quite possible that some of the restaurant's Muslim employees are actively cooperating with the terrorists, but the SWAT team's commander has no proof of that. As everyone knows, Al-Qaeda terrorists have no compunctions about taking innocent lives, including the captive SWAT team member. However, due to their extensive training, heavy weapons, and special equipment, the SWAT team is vastly more capable than ordinary police officers.

 

The SWAT team entered through the kitchen, where they found a cook and a chef. They asked to be taken to whomever was in charge. They were taken to the terrorist's leader, who then invited the team to dinner. He had something important he wanted to discuss with them about the American government. The SWAT team leader violently opposed the idea, and the terrorist's leader had enough of him. The terrorist leader then grabbed a cook and held a knife to his throat and threatened to kill him if the team didn't leave. The SWAT team leader replied, "So? He isn't innocent; he works for you." He then proceeded to remotely set off a shaped charge whch blew out a structural support, and in the confusion the SWAT team recovered it's kidnapped member and escaped from the building. This action caused the subsequent collapse of the building , killing 6 civilians, and injuring the 2 owners of the restaurant. The SWAT team immediately jumped into their SWAT van and departed to go grab some beers at their favorite pub because (after all) they'd successfully rescued their kidnapped member, irregardless of the fact that civilians were still in danger and the Al-Qaeda terrorists had not yet been apprehended.

 

Now, does anyone think the SWAT team acted properly here? If you read about a similar incident in the LA Times, would you call for the SWAT team to be given medals for heroism or fired from the LAPD?

 

Perhaps the real question Patriot needs the answer to is do his players still want to play in a 4-color campaign, or do they want to move into a more "Iron Age" type game? It's no good running a 4-color game if that's not where the players are.

[badger3k]

Good reply Treb.

 

Originally posted by J4y

You keep saying it's not in genre, but the villian's actions aren't either. As I pointed out, you simply cannot take hostages like that or your superheroic 4 color campaign grinds to a halt as Eurostar starts keeping hostages around in various locations in the world and would thus be immune to reprisals by superheros. You can't have 4C superhero players when your villians aren't 4C. DNPCs are for hostages, innocent bystanders to make combat harder work and hostages as the focus of the adventure work, but this seem more like having DNPC: Everyone in the world, which really lets the GM bludgeon the players good and hard at whim.

 

I can recall lots of hostages in the older comics - villains were always grabbing someone. Look at the old superman black and whites. Hostages are part of the tradition.

 

Without knowing the powers of the other characters, what they could have done is hard to say. Surprise moves to grab the innocent, distract Fiacho with illusions or mental attack, magnetize the knife (use TK), use speed to get behind him, talk to him? If nothing else, the characters still had an obligation to try to save the non-powered people. With Eurostars casual killing history, the heroes had an obligation to free all the innocents (and remember - they are all innocent until proven guilty), once combat seemed to be inevitable (although it may have not been). For every Swat team there is a hostage negotiator to defuse situations like that. Just because a man can fly doesn't mean he can ignore the victims of a criminal or terrorist - super-powered or no.