Superheroes Who Kill?

[Zan the Gamer]

I had a few questions to throw around about Heroes who kill in a Superhoeroic campaign.

 

What have you found helpful to discourage players who either want to or really don't care if it accidentally happens?

 

It seems to me that having the player become wanted for murder (in a non-Dark Champions game) will be more of a hassle than it would be fun, especially if they get caught. What player wants to spend their night roleplaying an inmate?

 

What happens if the caught Hero is sentenced to death?

 

What have you found helpful in avoiding these situations all together?

[Supreme]

What I often try to do with players who seek to kill is three-fold:

 

1. Remind them that this is not a D&D, Runequest, or other fantasy game. Their characters are living in a society with an actual legal code that prosecutes for murder.

2. Remind them that this is not a Wolverine, Punisher, or other vigilante game.

3. Failing results from either of the above two, I stop running the game and run D&D or Runequest. If they don't want to play a super-heroic game, don't force them. It's a game and everyone should be having fun regardless of what their personal taste may be.

[Hermit]

I pretty much explain to them that every super hero has an automatic 0 pt Psych limititation, Reluctant to Kill. I let them know I don't consider that in keeping with the version of the genre I am running, and if they expect kudos, much less exp for it, they're nuts. There maybe exceptions, but it is rare. Darn rare, and even then they'll be consequences.

 

Fortunately, my players are friends and agree with me on that point.

[KnightShade]

I think there are always things that can be done to avoid that. Cops/UNTIL/Intergalactic police/etc. can suddenly show up and tell everyone to freeze right as the character is about to make the killing blow. If the character decides to go ahead anyway, then maybe make them make an ego roll (with modifiers). If they're adamant about killing someone, then make them face consequences. Not all consequences mean being imprisoned, and being imprisoned doesn't mean you necessarily just sit there. In the the thread about a character that tore the head off a demon and realized it was a teenage kid, I really liked someone's suggestion to have enemies kidnap the character out of the jail, and make it look like the guy just escaped.

 

There are still a multitude of things that can be done, even if the PCs don't follow the story the way you had planned.

[Trebuchet]

Our campaign is unabashedly four-color. Not only do I expect my players to adher to the conventions of the genre, but as a GM I also have an equal responsibility to present them with situations appropriate to four-color. Hostages can be rescued, etc, without resorting to dismembering the villains. Villains can be interesting without being vicious.

 

In the twelve years of our campaign, I can recall only one villain dying as a result of direct action by a PC, and that was accidental (If possibly predictable). Our team has even rescued just-defeated supervillains from certain death.

 

I reward good roleplaying, and penalize poor role playing. If players don't want to adher to our codes (It's never been a problem; people generally enjoy being real heroes as opposed to D&D types in spandex.) then there are other campaigns in town. (In fact, three of my seven players participate in another much bloodier campaign as well.)

[Hermit]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

Our campaign is unabashedly four-color. Not only do I expect my players to adher to the conventions of the genre, but as a GM I also have an equal responsibility to present them with situations appropriate to four-color. Hostages can be rescued, etc, without resorting to dismembering the villains. Villains can be interesting without being vicious.

 

HHmm that is the flip side, the GM has to remember not to make it so the players feel they're characters are FORCED to kill.

[Blue]

May be the way that I *least* like to go about these sorts of things, but Experience = Leverage.

 

If someone wantonly (or even through reckless disregard) kills someone, they face not only in-game penalties (hunteds, reputations, loss of contacts in the law enforcement community), but they sure don't get any experience for games in which they murder someone. There would have to be one great roleplaying/in-character reason that didn't disturb the flow of the game in order for me to allow them to get EXP. But they'd still pick up a hunted and not get the points for it.

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by Hermit

HHmm that is the flip side, the GM has to remember not to make it so the players feel they're characters are FORCED to kill.

Of course. Role-playing is interactive fiction; the players provide action and dialog for the GM's setting and story framework. It falls short if either part of the equation fails to follow the rules. This kind of stuff should be understood by all before a campaign even begins. I'm often astonished at how many people on these boards have this problem, which generally is nothing more than poor communications: "OK, guys. No sociopathic loners and homicidal maniacs as heroes in this campaign. And if I ever hear the sound "schnick" uttered by one of your characters as he pops his claws, he's dead."

 

I guess I'm lucky in one respect. Since I have a (short) waiting list to get into my campaign, I don't feel obligated to let anyone run roughshod over my rules. If they don't like them, they can find another campaign. A little mutual respect goes a long way though.

 

Heck, I suppose if characters get to too kill happy towards the villains you can always have a bad guy's wife and five kids show up and demand support. "Mommy, why did the mean man kill Daddy? Bwaaaa..."

[assault]

My interpretation of "four colour" does not mean that villains don't die. They just tend to die by falling into vats of acid or off cliffs, being vaporised by their own superweapons, torn apart by their former minions, or just getting caught up in "no one could have survived that" explosions.

 

They don't generally get intentionally killed by PCs. Of course, having the odd Wolverine mixed in with your X-Men is fine - as long as the other characters don't fall into nodding and winking when he starts offing the baddies.

 

The real benefit of GM initiated deaths only is, of course, that these deaths can be reversed! This can't be as easily done if the PCs start killing. Then again, of course, it is easy to set up a situation where a PC kills an innocent - preferably one who matters to them in some way - which tends to sort out the good roleplayers from the bad ones.

 

The problem is the bad ones. A PC that isn't bothered by just having killed one of their loved ones is a lost cause. Unfortunately, they are probably more common than the other kind.

 

A partial solution might be to set up a near-miss situation. Let the PC announce that they are launching the fatal attack - and then interrupt them before they roll the dice with the realisation that the target isn't who they thought it was. This is easy for a character with enhanced senses - for example, Wolverine would recognise the target's smell - but could also be handled by the target shaking off the mind control or whatever.

 

Narrowly averted disasters are useful instructional tools.

 

An alternative is to replace the target with a robot duplicate. This isn't quite as educational, but it's kind of amusing. The PC tears Dr Doom apart, but - it's only a robot. Possibly filled with explosives.

 

Out of game, of course, it helps if your players understand the genre your game is trying to recreate. If they want to hack and slash, don't try to run a four colour game.

 

Superheroes do kill, by the way. Batman was entirely unphased by killing until a new editor decided otherwise. _Robin_ killed several times. I'm not sure about Superman, but he certainly wasn't pulling his punches in his early appearances. The Spectre, well, err...

 

One of the funny things about the supposed "Iron Age" of comics is that a lot of its distinguishing features were present in the Golden Age. Heroes killed. Heroines wore skimpy costumes. (Check out the Phantom Lady some time. Either bits of her costume were being held in place by tape, or she would have been prone to unintentional surprise maneuvers in combat.) The only real difference is that the Golden Agers didn't whine about it.

 

Part of the "Killing Problem" is that coming up with alternatives involves thought. There is also a problem of identification with the genre. Both of these are really matters of skill in roleplaying. The second, at least, can partly be dealt with by talking to your players, finding out what they want, and discussing the kind of game you should run for them.

 

Come to think of it, this is probably a good idea for any game you run. I wish I had thought of it years ago.

 

Alan

[Trebuchet]

Originally posted by assault

My interpretation of "four colour" does not mean that villains don't die. They just tend to die by falling into vats of acid or off cliffs, being vaporised by their own superweapons, torn apart by their former minions, or just getting caught up in "no one could have survived that" explosions.

 

They don't generally get intentionally killed by PCs.

The villains dying due to their own arrogance and/or megalomania is quite all right and utterly in genre. That's happened even in my four-color campaign.

 

Even Wolverine didn't kill for the first several years after he was introduced in X-Men comics, although how a guy whose sole attack is super-sharp adamantium blades wouldn't kill everything he came up against is more amazing than his healing powers.

[Mr. Negative]

Re: Superheroes Who Kill?

 

Originally posted by Zan the Gamer

I had a few questions to throw around about Heroes who kill in a Superhoeroic campaign.

 

What have you found helpful to discourage players who either want to or really don't care if it accidentally happens?

 

What have you found helpful in avoiding these situations all together?

 

Well, there's always the simple rule of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Let the players know that the GM will be playing by the same rules that they are. If they don't want to kill, and try not to kill, then so will the GM. If they want to kill characters, then the GM will also try to kill characters.

 

Note that I'm not saying that the villains will try/not try to kill. A vicious, murdering villain WILL try to kill the PCs, but a "no killing" GM will make sure that he runs scenarios where the PCs COULD be killed, but are not. A killing GM is operating under no such restrictions.

 

For example:

 

"Killing discouraged" campaign:

 

Assassination Man begins a lengthy campaign of terror against innocent people, forcing the PCs to scramble for clues to stop his murderous spree.

 

 

"Killing is OK" campaign:

 

Assassination Man's campaign of terror begins by putting a bullet in the head of one of the PCs, and the others have to try to avenge his death.

 

Much like the power writers have over comics, the GM can determine the tone of a campaign. Ever notice how Batman is never suprised and attacked by people who could kill him instantly, but is instead only taken by suprise by people who either want to capture him, or who can't kill him without a good fight?

 

The same applies to RPGs. There is nothing inherently unrealistic or unfair about the hapless victim being a PC. However, in a "killing discouraged" campaign, the GM doesn't target the PCs quite like he does "innocent bystanders", even though the PC may be just as unsuspecting.

 

However, if the PCs want to run in a "killing is OK" campaign, then they might expect that same rule to apply to them.

 

 

None of this should be taken to suggest that I am against PC killing of NPCs. I'm currently getting a low-level superhero/martial arts campaign started, and one of my own campaign "genre bits" is that Hong Kong action violence is not only OK, but expected. The PCs are expected to plow through mooks and minions, and can expect those minions to fight them "fairly" and not use sniper rifles/car bombs/limpet mines.

 

Many PCs who want to/aren't afraid of killing NPCs are guilty of trying to exploit the GM's genre conventions to their own benefit. I know that some are thinking: "Cool. I can just kill this guy, but the GM won't kill me, because I'm a PC! I won't get arrested, because that would be boring role-playing, which no one wants. That means I can let loose!"

 

There is no requirement that you abide by this player's (mis)apprehensions.

 

However, I would advise that you let people know about your genre expectations (and any changes to them you might make) beforehand. Don't let a miscommunication, rather than a deliberate disruption, spoil your group.

[assault]

Re: Re: Superheroes Who Kill?

 

Originally posted by Mr. Negative

For example:

 

"Killing discouraged" campaign:

 

Assassination Man begins a lengthy campaign of terror against innocent people, forcing the PCs to scramble for clues to stop his murderous spree.

 

 

"Killing is OK" campaign:

 

Assassination Man's campaign of terror begins by putting a bullet in the head of one of the PCs, and the others have to try to avenge his death.

 

This doesn't follow. A "Killing is OK" campaign is not a "Hose the PCs at every opportunity" campaign. A "Killing is OK" game would be exactly like the "Killing discouraged" game except for what happens when the PCs catch up with Assassination Man.

 

Of course, if the PCs leave a trail of corpses behind them during their investigation they will get hosed - but that would be true in EITHER style of game. Inappropriate killing is a bad idea in either version. It's self-inflicted harm.

 

Gross stupidity tends to be fatal. In Champions, in fact, it's the number one cause of death, in my experience.

 

Alan

[Ghost who Walks]

I'm glad you started this as a topic.

 

In my own campaign, the first group were a bunch of 200 point panzies, with a dark champions flair. They knew there were more powerful villains in the campaign, who would not hesitiate to kill them.

 

Stronghold, or an alternative, did not yet exist. There was no 'magic' tech that could take away someone's powers. (Other than pumping them full of drugs) So, villains did get killed. I was influenced heavily by Dark Champions at the time, and the heroes were just as vulnerable as those they killed. (They once had a long discussion about if they should kill an unconcious Le Sone...the police arrived in time to 'save' him)

 

Some of the villains they killed, maimed, or tortured included the guy who harvested organs from metahuman children...I was in a rather bad mood when I ran that one.

 

I treated it as a roleplaying exercise at the time. If they wanted to be true vigilantes (who by defenition, take justice in their own hands), they had to do it right. This included stuff like getting rid of the bodies, and dealing with somerather corrupt police officers.

 

Having played through this, I realized I was losing something. Namely, the reacurring villain common in the comics. The game had become a tactical exercise, rather than an actual RPG.

 

So I toned it down a bit. In the game, this was reflected by the characters all passing exams and becoming deputy sheriffs (the sheriff had a rivalry with the city police, who disliked superpowered types)

 

Having said that, most of my players do have a body count. In some cases, the deaths were justifiable. (Insane alien shapeshifter kidnapped ones wife) In other cases, it was because they were ordered to.

 

It all depends on the campaign that is being run. While I enjoy four-color as much as anyone, the reality is most of the comics being produced are not that type. the majority of players have a bachground reading them. There have also been a variety of villains written up for Champions, and some of them are rather nasty.

 

Lets face it, do you really want the cast of 'Murderer's Row' showing up every play session? Some villains are made to be arrested, others to be masterminds, others to turn good, and others to be cannon fodder.

 

I will say that every type a player has killed someone, I used it as a method to either advance the plot, or the character. Same way as if they lock the guy up, actually.

 

1) Insane alien shapeshifter left behind a son, who the player now raises as his own.

 

2) Le Sone persuaded Bora to send a storm to ravage the campaign city, for what the heroes attemptred to do to him. Innocent people died in this artificial storm.

 

3) The metahuman organ harvester became part of the campaign focus for a while, as their is significant anti-mutant/metahuman prejudice in my campaign (For everyone who has a useful power, there are 10 who can do things like have a non-prehensile tail, have hair that grows really fast, or can make their urine change color)

 

Another method I used, that was surprisingly effective. I ran a "alternate Earth" storyline, where several of the villain types were heroes. None of the big guys (like Dr. Destroyer) were involved, just the small fry. Settling up the idea that the difference between hero and villain is a matter of oppertunity, direction, and how you grow up is a big thing.

 

Batman and Superman don't usually kill because of how they grew up, not just because they are heroes. Wolverine and Punisher kill because they think it solves problems. (yet even in their own comics they have to keep doing it, proving its cyclical nature)

 

Of course, sometimes you will get a player who just likes to break stuff and kill NPCs. Life can be a bitch sometimes. I usually make them co-GM's, and give them a couple of villains to run. It usually solves the probelm, as they are seldom interested in long-term character development.

 

(Sorry for the long post, but I've been thinking about this topic all day)

[CrosshairCollie]

I have, fortunately, had few instances of 'Killer PCs'. Of course, I tend to come down pretty hard on them. I had one game where I had CLOWN dress up in costumes to LARP Champions ... I forgave the one PC for Moving-Through Dot in the tin-foil Mechanon Costume and causing Body, as he had legitimate reason to think that was Mechanon.

 

However, this came up later ... well after the costumes had been discarded, this same PC was Tag-ged, and got belted hard; her forcefield dropped, which meant another shot from Tag was going to inflict some heavy-duty Body damage. Toe-Tapper tags a nearby inanimate object to divert Tag from pounding the heroine ... and when she un-stuns, she belts Toe-Tapper with a pushed attack and takes off over half his Body, and she was going to do it again except Tag jumped in to take the shot for him (and laughed it off, for the most part).

 

Now, at this point, it became attempted murder. This is CLOWN, well known for not hurting civilians, and one of them had just gone out of his way to prevent a hero from getting pulped. The player retired the character (who I intended to bring back as a villain, but never did) and made a new one.

[Storn]

wow. Every reply enforces the comic code crap and 4 color outlook.

 

This one will not. We play a world of consequences that looks more like Authority or Planetary or Watchmen.

 

Well, my PC (who just recently went over 600 pts in 11 years of gaming) has killed. Sometimes deliberately from ambush (that's what happens when PSI takes a hostage and you can't allow them to "report in"). Sometimes in the heat of battle. And once in cold blood.

 

The amount of power these characters weild is immense. Anything over 12d6 normal attack IS a lethal attack for a normal. Do not kid yourselves. It is just the way most Champs characters are built, they can suck that up.

 

But when there are 11 European cities with nuclear devices ready to go off... it is not time for namby-pamby hand holding for villians. Putting Dr. Destroyer into Stronghold, where he will get out and he will gain even more converts... is irresponsible.

 

But I have never killed easily. And I don't like killing. But if the stakes are high enough and innocents need to be defended.... you do not mess with my character.

 

Nor has it been often. Compared to how much combat my character has seen?!!?!?! Probably been in 200-250 scrapes, firefights, and full blown wars. I don't keep track of how many deaths I've caused directly, but it is under 50.....37 of them were an accident that was not in my control (my powers returned spectacularly and explosiviely after them being lost for several months).

 

Compare that to how many lives my PC has saved? I feel quite strongly that I'm still a hero.

 

When I met Neil and he told me of his game and RDU, I had come off of two Champions games, one I ran, another run by someone else. I told Neil that 1) I didn't want to do bankrobbery stories. And 2) I wanted to tackle comic book emulation with modern sensibilities. That meant coming in with a proactive character. Not sitting around on my hands while the Sentinel alarm went off. And rotating door policies for villians. How many times do you allow the Joker to escape and kill again before you take his ass out? The remenants of Silver Age elements, themes and enforced codes?....I wasn't interested. I wanted to do serious stories about serious situations with the sci-fi element of people with powers. Heck, I can even do without codenames and costumes... although that has seemed to stuck around.

 

Listen, I'm not saying that 4 Color is wrong. It is just not for me. And if I had a GM saying I cannot kill because Heroes in Comics don't kill. I would walk. That type of world is inheritently unintersesting to me. What is interesting is the responsibility of power. In my player's pinky is enough power to blow a hole in something, HOW do I deal with that. That is conflict! That is drama! That is interesting!

[starblaze]

I think as far as killing goes it really depends on the opponent and the story. If the villians is say a jewel theif leaving behind a velvet glove or something or a Foxbat type character then that is one thing. He should be taken out but not neccessarily killed, but if he is some Joker/Carnage type villian who is endangering innocent lives and killing without any remorse at all then that type of person should be taken out and killed. He is a mad-dog killer. Now that doesn't mean he is not protected by law and should not be taken prisoner but if it is between his life and the life of innocents at his mercy then killing him should not be a penalty against the character.

 

I believe most superheroes, particulary sactioned ones should consider lethal force to be an option for their character in much the same way that police officers are.

 

I mean let us get real here. Would anyone besides maybe Harley Quinn actually cry if the Joker got snuffed?

[bcholmes]

Originally posted by KnightShade

I think there are always things that can be done to avoid that. Cops/UNTIL/Intergalactic police/etc. can suddenly show up and tell everyone to freeze right as the character is about to make the killing blow.

 

Oooo! Or how about the version of the characters from ten years in the future suddenly appear and warn them that killing the villain is going to cause Grave Consequences!

[Azimer the Mad]

I try to run a Grant Morriosn-JLA style game on an Avengers power level. What that means is that, while Silver Age events happen, the environment and the characters react with modern sensibilities. FOr example, Grond may be a sympathetic character, but when he threw a bus down a sloped Bay City street last session, the characters saw blood stains of the windows.

 

My characters mostly react as people who don't WANT to kill, but everyone considers the option.

 

For example, the 18-year old electic blaster plays a high personal Code Vs. Killing (though I'm not sure she ever wrote it down), and has an NND no Range Brain Fry Killing attack. She's only used it twice, against Dark Seraph and the villain who killed her fiance (Soundawave from Villains Unlimited). Most of the rest of the time she's fine with stun blasts or Aikido.

 

That's most of my players in a nutshell. When they fight "bank robbers," as that level of evil has been called, they never use killing attacks. Even against most murderers they prefer to have them stand trial. Against the real mass-murderers, two out of the four usually don't hold back.

 

The mentalist player is the most prone to kill. He is infuriated by villains who target hiis family (public ID< house of super-teens), and villains who never "wise up." That generally means "commit crime, Psion beats you hard, serve time, go back to crime."

 

In return. after watching him agonize over the possibility of Arkham Asylum-level security, I made sure that Stronghold wasn't the escape-prone revolving door it could be. I knew if he faced the same villain ever four issues, and they kept hurting innocents, he'd kill them.

 

He's toned down his killing after realizing he was spooking his family, but amongst the villains he has a reputation for lethal force. This makes the villains respect him, and thus makes him kill less, so it works out. A handful of lower-level have quit villains have just quit villany, and that went a long way to assuading his fears.

 

The only reason he let Fiacho live was so that Danar could undergo depowering surgery and stand trial in the Hague. It was a favor to the other PCs. He did his best to Durok after Durok killed a girl the same age as his daughters on live TV. I had mo problem with that in character motivation, as it was realistic.

 

Psion's player has told me that, if he was in the DCU, he would snap the Joker's neck without thinking. He was ecstatic when one villain was actually executed. Thus, I don;t have my villains act like true psychopaths unless

 

A) They can escape or return easily, like Mechanon, or

 

I expect the players to use lethal force, and plan on that drama, like Soundwave.

 

I'm running Day of the Destroyer now, and probably runnig through Battlegrounds, because some of the players have said there have been too many psychopaths lately. I honestly think that many players attitudes against killing is dependant on what usually happens to the villains after the fight.

 

GMs should carefully think about the prisson escape and rehabilitaion levels of the campaigns, becaue, of course, the longer a GM keeps his villains alive, the longer the game lasts.

[KA.]

You know, a lot of the "anti four-color" sentiment seems to come from people who have played in "off-color" campaigns.

 

The ones where the GM expects the players to live up to four-color standards, and then places them in situations like:

 

"One hundred orphans have small nuclear devices implanted in their chests. If they suffer so much as a paper cut, the device will detonate and destroy a twelve block radius.

 

The only way to prevent detonation is to vaporize the orphan in one shot. They are spread throughout the city, and the devices will begin to detonate in two hours."

 

How the heck you are supposed to deal with that in a "four color" way, I don't know.

 

The only way that four color can work is if the rules apply to the villains as well as the players. That means that you don't have "super powered serial killers", "demonic possesion", and certain other issues in a four-color campaign.

 

You can have a challenging, puzzling, hard fought, campaign, there just doesn't have to be blood and bodies everywhere.

 

Actually, maintaining a campaign that is exciting without blowing people's heads off every five minutes is a rewarding challenge.

 

KA

[RDU Neil]

It's all in the intent...

 

I run the RDU campaign that Storn was talking about. It's lasted almost 17 years. When Storn joined in '92, we had that talk, and my reply was... "RDU is about power and repercussions. No false genre conventions... but how they use their power... that is what I want to explore."

 

To me, the question of "to kill or not to kill" comes down to the intent. A punch that can knock out a man in one shot can also inflict lethal damage. Not as LIKELY as a .45, but possible. The attack isn't important, but the intent of the character.

 

Lethal attacks ARE effective, because they are lethal. They inflict focused damage with the intent to take the opponent out of the fight as efficiently and effectively as possible.

 

This villain is threatening innocents. I can't risk an attack that may or may not take him out, because then he could harm the hostages. I don't want to kill him, but if I think my lethal attack has the best chance of stopping him in one shot... it would be morally incorrect to try a "softer" approach. It might not work, and a hostage dies... that's MY responsibility.

 

The absolute "code vs. Killing" that forces a person to ignore efficient, rational and effective means of stopping someone from harming others is morally bankrupt.

 

I'm not saying you should go out with the intent to kill... but ruling out any action that "might possibly be lethal" is just a falacy.

[FenrisUlf]

Very interesting reading here.

 

Myself, I'm somewhere between Silver and Iron Age; most villains don't kill, some do, and some of the heroes will take a hard-line response. And certainly a campaign that revolves around the responsibility of power sounds like something with real staying power.

 

My main problem with campaigns where killing is allowed is that I've known too many players of the 'I can kill? Cool! Huh-huh!' variety. Trying to use real-world consequences against them typically proves useless, and you ultimately wind up with either a 'kill 'em all!' campaign or total self-destruction.

[Lord Mhoram]

Originally posted by Storn

wow. Every reply enforces the comic code crap and 4 color outlook.

 

This one will not. We play a world of consequences that looks more like Authority or Planetary or Watchmen.

 

Originally posted by RDU Neil

I run the RDU campaign that Storn was talking about. It's lasted almost 17 years. When Storn joined in '92, we had that talk, and my reply was... "RDU is about power and repercussions. No false genre conventions... "

 

 

Talk about opposite ends of the spectrum.

I play for the "false genre conventions" and I pretty much stopped reading what few marvel titles I read when they dropped the comics code. I hate Authority and Watchmen was something that was well done, but 12 issues of things like that in the last 20 years was plenty for me.

 

I go for an Astro City feel. It is still about power and repercussions, but is full of "false genre conventions" and is pretty much comics code style.

 

Some people want to play realistic in the sense "what if supers really existed in the real world" I'd rather play "what if we were in thier world"- the second qoute by Busiek in Astro City.

 

Now to the topic of the thread. If the camaign is four color and players kill without thought or remorse drop the heavy end of the hammer on them; but first talk to the player and let them know that this kind of action is not what you expected/wanted from the campaign- I usually have a handout for new players explaining things like that.

 

Now, if they do it with soul searching due to an extreme situation, then go with the roleplaying. I had a character kill someone for just that reason, but I came up to the GM and said "I want to run an extended plot about my character being possessed by her powers, killing someone, being depowered and dealing with the consequences." So we did. In the end, there was a big laser shot at stronghold that let everyone out, and she fought to keep the other prisoners in, and got pardoned because of it. Deal with the power, and repercusions, but still a very four color end result.

[Trebuchet]

I'm certainly not going to make a claim that four-color games are inherently better, only that that is the way I set up my current campaign. I wanted a return to basics. Reluctance to kill or an outright Code vs Killing are staples of four-color "Comics Code" comics and my campaign is a deliberate homage to 60s-70s style comic books, right down to the fact that wearing spectacles constitutes an impenetrable disguise. Campaign styles have to be matched with players and even more to characters. I wouldn't run my current character Zl'f in a game where killing is routine; her innocence is an essential part of her character. But I've also run an utterly pragmatic ninja character in another campaign who killed reasonably often. You just have to tailor the character to the desired genre.

 

That same ninja quit the team when it crossed over into villainy; it says something when the team's ninja is the most law-abiding character on the team.

[Chuckg]

Agreed -- you have to pick the right character. Right now, my flying energy blaster Starguard is as innocent as your Z'lf... even more so, as she's just started her hero career. But the game she's in has a "JLA" style tone, so she fits in just fine as the team's resident Year One Kitty Pryde-equivalent.

 

If I were going to a game with a darker tone, I'd be running another character -- such as my Baron von Darien, an elder vampire and very pragmatic anti-hero with a sense of noblesse oblige.

[Hermit]

Originally posted by KA.

You know, a lot of the "anti four-color" sentiment seems to come from people who have played in "off-color" campaigns.

 

The ones where the GM expects the players to live up to four-color standards, and then places them in situations like:

 

"One hundred orphans have small nuclear devices implanted in their chests. If they suffer so much as a paper cut, the device will detonate and destroy a twelve block radius.

 

The only way to prevent detonation is to vaporize the orphan in one shot. They are spread throughout the city, and the devices will begin to detonate in two hours."

 

How the heck you are supposed to deal with that in a "four color" way, I don't know.

 

The only way that four color can work is if the rules apply to the villains as well as the players. That means that you don't have "super powered serial killers", "demonic possesion", and certain other issues in a four-color campaign.

 

You can have a challenging, puzzling, hard fought, campaign, there just doesn't have to be blood and bodies everywhere.

 

Actually, maintaining a campaign that is exciting without blowing people's heads off every five minutes is a rewarding challenge.

 

KA

 

Another thing that works, both to further 'realism' and make it so the players don't feel they're helpless to stop the 'revolving door' is to handle the State responsibly, and occaisonally a 'killer villain' gets death row and ends up successfully executed.

 

Like you said, the GM has to act responsibly as well, and while it's okay to play the system as in need of help, it's unfair (both to the real system AND the players) to portray that system as eternally incompetent.