Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

[Lucius]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Since it's fictional, how can 'everyone' know anything about it with certainty.

 

Have it your way then. There were infants on the Death Star.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

They probably had a herd of palindromedaries too.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

The US does not declare war against individuals. We declare war against foreign states. So there would never be a declaration of war against Dr Destroyer.

 

This could be viewed as a matter of semantics. The United States has actively persecuted many 'wars' over, say, the last 60 years without doing so pursuant to a formal, Congressionally-approved Declaration of War. The Cold War and the War on Terror are perhaps the most famous examples.

 

al Qaeda is a stateless, multi-national terrorist organization. But I think it'd be hard to convincingly argue that the United States has not actively 'waged war' against al Qaeda over the last decade, with a particular focus on Osama bin Laden, an individual.

 

Personally, I'd expect the United States (and many other nations) to react similarly to any powerful super-villain (and the organization of lesser super villains and non-powered minions collected around them).

 

Dr. Destroyer in the aftermath of the destruction of Detroit is a great example to discuss as a hypothetical. If he were later found unconscious at the feet of a super hero, and that hero elected to "put and end to Destroyer's long reign of terror," by analogy to Osama bin Laden's death, I think most Americans would applaud that as 'heroic,' and feel a strong sense of relief.

[Christopher]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

But the Death Star was purportedly much bigger than an aircraft carrier or a submarine or a bomber. Indeed' date=' it was moon-sized. So those analogies are highly imperfect, at best. There were civilians stationed in the Green Zone in Iraq during the worst of the fighting there a few years ago. In light of that, why would it be so "reasonable" to assume there would be no civilians on an artificial moon like the Death Star?[/quote']

Why plae citizen on a secret superweapon? What service could they provide that military personel could not?

 

Also placing a soldiers family in the same boat only means he has his mind elsewhere when under attack. You need him worried about his life and his ship, not about how to best abandon his post to get his family to safety.

The death star was a superweapon, a weapon of mass destruction and it was destroyed on an assault mission.

 

I know we're going off topic' date=' but...I disagree. I don't believe in turning war into a law-enforcement proceeding. An indiscriminate attack on a civilian target, killing thousands in the process, in furtherance of a declared offensive against the USA strikes me as an act of war. Carrying the war to said declared enemy is also war. Not law-enforcement.[/quote']

As far as I heard there was no war. Neither in afganistan nor iraq tehre was any declarartion of war. But you said it's okay if america just considers itself to be at war with him.

Afaik Hitler considered himself to be personally at war with the jews as well - he gave 'the jews' the blame for suffering from a gas attack in WW1.

 

 

But seriously, most of the discussions we are doing has nothing to do with what is just, right or ehtical. There are things one considers right and thigns he/she considers wrong. That is that person Moral.

All talk about what is just, right or ethical is really just us saying "this is how I like it, here are my arguments for how my point of view is right".

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

They got justice. People just didn't get revenge for the heinous crimes that both of those men helped plan and execute.

 

I'm not sure I'd agree that Speer and Goring got 'justice' at Nuremberg. And I think it's fair to say that's a matter of continued debate among historians as well.

 

Goring managed to commit suicide (using poison surreptitiously smuggled in to him in prison) the night before he was scheduled to hang following his conviction at Nuremberg. Is killing himself on his own terms, while simultaneously avoiding the sentence legally-imposed on him, really 'justice'? (Personally, I don't think this is a big deal, since he was killed one-way-or-the-other. But it does raise intriguing issues about the full nature of 'justice.') And if Goring's suicide is still considered 'justice,' how would that be much different from one of his guards doing a 'Jack Ruby' and putting a bullet in his head while he slept, the night before he was scheduled to hang.

 

In contrast, I think it's fair to say that historians openly question whether Albert Speer got off too light at Nuremberg, in significant part because Speer was more urbane (and openly apologetic) than many of the other Nazi thugs on trial at Nuremberg. Speer served a mere 20 years in prison, then wrote a famously exculpatory memoir (which I thought was a compelling, if self-serving, read) and then lived as a free man for another 25 years before dying in 1981. That might've been 'justice' had Speer merely been Hitler's favorite architect (and perhaps his best friend). But Speer was also the Nazi Armaments Minister from 1942, and a highly successful one at that who, among other things, knowingly employed slave labor. How many countless hundreds of thousands of deaths did he contribute to while being the Nazi Armaments Minister? I suspect strongly that there are many people on death row today, convicted of killing only one person, who would probably view Speer's 20 year prison sentence with extreme incredulity.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Why plae citizen on a secret superweapon? What service could they provide that military personel could not?

 

Three words: 'necessary support personnel.'

 

A relatively famous recent example would be how the US Military arranges to have Subway (and other fast food) available for soldiers serving in selected parts of Iraq and Afghanistan. Presumably this is done to boost morale. The people making the Subway sandwiches are civilians. (It simply wouldn't taste the same if the food was instead being made by a rotating cast of 18 year old buck privates. And if the food didn't taste the same as it does at home, the whole morale-boosting effect would be diminished.)

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

As far as I heard there was no war. Neither in afganistan nor iraq tehre was any declarartion of war. But you said it's okay if america just considers itself to be at war with him.

 

I agree. I made this same point above, just a few minutes ago.

[dmjalund]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

necessary support personnel were probably also military

[Matt the Bruins]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

It simply wouldn't taste the same if the food was instead being made by a rotating cast of 18 year old buck privates.

 

As compared to the rotating cast of 16 year old high school students that make it in my local Subways? We're not talking haute cuisine here, it's putting turkey slices and lettuce on a piece of bread.

[Zen Archer]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

I know we're going off topic' date=' but...I disagree. I don't believe in turning war into a law-enforcement proceeding. An indiscriminate attack on a civilian target, killing thousands in the process, in furtherance of a declared offensive against the USA strikes me as an act of war. Carrying the war to said declared enemy is also war. Not law-enforcement..[/quote']

 

Fair point, and not all that off-topic. After all, what we seem to be talking about now is whether or not it's OK to turn a law-enforcement proceeding into a war.

 

But back on topic (sort of): I think the analogy to Bin Laden is a good one. Some people decried his death' date=' but many if not most Americans (at least among those I know) were, if not actively pleased by his demise, at least felt it was justified. And that's after one--count it, one--act of "supervillainy". If he'd been captured, tried, convicted, imprisoned, and then escaped to plot even more such crimes, especially if it happened more than once, I don't think many people would object if he was summarily shot the next time he was cornered.[/quote']

 

Probably true. Few people would probably ever get the details in any case. A mention of "resisting arrest" would probably suffice.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

As compared to the rotating cast of 16 year old high school students that make it in my local Subways?

 

Hah! A very good point!

 

But nonetheless, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service places franchises of fast food restaurants at US military facilities all over the world. They are operated by third party concessionaires who do not employ enlisted personnel as workers. (Though they frequently employ their civilian family members.) You can read more at this link (a 2004 article in a trade magazine), which also references the Subway in Iraq. When I saw it profiled on CNN long ago, I remember that the employees were civilians, but not Americans: they were from the Philippines and Poland.

 

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/subway-opens-iraq

 

“'Name-brand fast food is a huge morale booster,' says AAFES’ Vice President of Food and Theater Richard Sheff. 'AAFES is very excited about the opportunity to deliver a taste of home to troops deployed throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom.'... AAFES currently operates 46 Subway restaurants including 37 overseas. In Iraq, AAFES currently operates three Burger King and two Pizza Hut restaurants. Over the next 12 months, AAFES plans to open more than 50 name brand fast food facilities during the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Few people would probably ever get the details in any case. A mention of "resisting arrest" would probably suffice.

 

I hadn't thought about it that way, Zen Archer. But I think you're probably exactly right.

[brionl]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Hah! A very good point!

 

But nonetheless, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service places franchises of fast food restaurants at US military facilities all over the world. They are operated by third party concessionaires who do not employ enlisted personnel as workers. (Though they frequently employ their civilian family members.) You can read more at this link (a 2004 article in a trade magazine), which also references the Subway in Iraq. When I saw it profiled on CNN long ago, I remember that the employees were civilians, but not Americans: they were from the Philippines and Poland.

 

http://www.qsrmagazine.com/news/subway-opens-iraq

 

“'Name-brand fast food is a huge morale booster,' says AAFES’ Vice President of Food and Theater Richard Sheff. 'AAFES is very excited about the opportunity to deliver a taste of home to troops deployed throughout Operation Iraqi Freedom.'... AAFES currently operates 46 Subway restaurants including 37 overseas. In Iraq, AAFES currently operates three Burger King and two Pizza Hut restaurants. Over the next 12 months, AAFES plans to open more than 50 name brand fast food facilities during the course of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

 

There are no Subways on an Aircraft Carrier. The Death Star was a warship, not a "base".

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

There are no Subways on an Aircraft Carrier. The Death Star was a warship' date=' not a "base".[/quote']

 

Putting to one side that I never suggested there were any Subway franchises on the Death Star, I'd note that the fictional Death Star was much bigger than any aircraft carrier or even any US military base with which I am familiar.

 

According to p. 17 of the "Death Star Technical Companion" published by West End Games in 1991, the fictional Death Star was 120 kilometers in diameter, had a total of 800,000 officers/troops/pilots/crew, and a further 378,000 support personnel.

 

Could over a million people be expected to live comfortably, marooned in outer space on an artificial moon like the Death Star for an extended period of time, without even a single civilian bartender, or entertainer, or chef, or masseur (or merchant, or artist......)

[Zen Archer]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Could over a million people be expected to live comfortably' date=' marooned in outer space on an artificial moon like the Death Star for an extended period of time, without even a single civilian bartender, or entertainer, or chef, or masseur (or merchant, or artist......)[/quote']

 

Ah, thread drift.

 

I suspect, given the majority of the people we're talking about here are Stormtroopers, that this is irrelevant. I think it can be assumed that the senior officers and other upper class types get as much of those things as they want, and everybody else gets what is required for them to function.

[bluesguy]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

And I now return you back to the original topic

 

I am running a Silver Age style campaign right now. I basically told the players we would be playing in a Silver Age campaign and that my basic rules were : all heroes get "Code vs. Killing" which doesn't have to be total but they needed it. I also told them that as a general rule most supervillains don't try to kill either. They will kill but it is more a consequence of the massive amounts of power/damage being generated in a fight. I have even gone so far as to change some supervillains attacks from killing to normal attacks (maybe w/ penetrating) to lower the likelihood of 'killing' happening by accident.

 

There are some villains who will kill and do so at the drop of the hat.

 

I did all of this because I wanted the 'lightness' of a Silver Age style game. Everyone gets plenty of 'gray' in my fantasy game setting.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

On the Death Star...

During WW2, the U.S. military ran bars and restaraunts (Clubs) surprisingly close to the front lines, especially in the Pacific.

And the bartenders, waiters, cooks, chefs, floor sweepers, bus boys, bouncers, etc. were all active duty military. Only the rare USO shows were civilian entertainers. The idea that these jobs 'require' civilians is a recent one, pushed by the likes of Halliburton.

 

In addition, Star Wars Universe has droids to do menial labor. The toilet scrubbing droid does the job (and the food serving droid, the plate washing droid, the floor polishing droid that Chewbacca threatens...). No need for civilians.

 

But, there were civilians on the Death Star (my opinion). There was almost certainly a USO show equivelant, a couple hundred contractors, an admiral's mistress or two (although the Admiral's Mistress might be a enlisted yoeman, following the U.S. Navy's tradition).

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Ah' date=' thread drift. I suspect, given the majority of the people we're talking about here are Stormtroopers, that this is irrelevant. [/quote']

 

According to the "Death Star Technical Companion," there were 25,984 Storm Troopers on the Death Star in addition to the 1,180,000 other personnel I previously noted. That would bring the total full-time population of the fictional Death Star to over 1.2 million, which would make it the 9th largest city in America currently, according to the table at this link:

 

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html

 

I think it'd be hard to imagine the 9th largest city in America with absolutely no civilians, and absolutely no children. But the death Star is fictional, so anything is possible.

 

To bring this back to the topic of the thread, the issue is whether killing a villain who is unconscious and defenseless and at the feet of the super hero could ever be anything other than craven, criminal and murderous. I've said, 'yes.' It may even be heroic. To use a fictional example, Luke Skywalker blew up an artifical moon that was the equivalent of the 9th largest city in America, and he was cheered wildly and ultimately given a gold medal for his efforts.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

And the problem with that is? If you are performing some kind of shipboard function that helps the Death Star function' date=' you ARE front-line combat personnel even if you never pull a trigger. Even if you aren't, and your death is incidental to Luke's objective (which is to destroy the weapon), Luke isn't a hero for killing you. He's a hero for destroying the weapon, and your death is a regrettable side-effect. And once against, the rules for serving military personnel are different from the rules for cops and the rules for public spirited citizens with eccentric fasion sense. [/quote']

 

Presumably, that includes medics and medical personnel. Are they valid targets? Should we shoot them first to minimize medical assistance to the soldiers?

 

I don't think that you'd have to worry about killing civilians where the Death Star is concerned; remember' date=' we're talking about a weapon of mass destruction created by Palpatine's Empire, not a starship of the 24th Century Federation's family-friendly Starfleet. It's a given that there's no way in hell that there'd be civilians serving in any capacity aboard that monstrosity, nor would there be any families of said civilians be aboard it. [/quote']

 

We have to make assumptions about the populace of a military base/vehicle the size of a small moon, since we have no real world equivalent. USO style entertainers seem possible. If we ignore anyone else who may have been civilian support personnel, however, do you think the base held a full cell block (or more - was that the only one on the entire small moon sized Death Star?) just to imprison Leia for a couple of days, or were there other non-DS personnel prisoners? or even one or more objectors to just blowing up a planet full of people tossed in the bring for insubordination?

[Erkenfresh]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Wow, I wrote this thread and took a day off from it because I was so busy yesterday. It's really exploded! Kind of like the Death Star or Radium. 6 month old babies on the death star? I really doubt there were.

 

In this particular scenario, the fight took place in the Ultimate's base. The party had thwarted some of their shenanigans (non-violent thefts) and were ready to bring them in for justice. They had a lead on where their plane had last been spotted, about ten miles away from Millenium City. So, they tracked down the base and broke in. What I did not forsee was that it would come down to the last PC, the one who was least human, ending the fight. Like I said before though, I like being flexible. I don't plan super far out in advance so whether the Ultimates continued to exist or not didn't bother me.

 

The rest of the hero team knows nothing about the murders. They were all unconcious when it happened. When they awoke, there was a loud noise as Radium's corpse was overloading. All they knew was they had to get out fast. Any cameras that might have caught footage in the base were destroyed by the explosion (unless of course they fed to an off-site recording device... hmm).

 

Truthfully, I don't want the law coming down hard on them. In my opinion, that doesn't make for a fun or interesting game. "So guys, this week we roleplay week eight of your trial..." What would be much more interesting is one or two unexpected survivors putting a new team together to hunt down the party and get some revenge. They could do so under a different guise even. Make the party suspicious, but not able to just go after them immediately. This is a much more fun type of consequence of the player's harsh actions.

 

In the end, yes, you may think heroes murdering the villains should be forbidden. I get that totally. But, I'm willing to be a bit more flexible and see how this plays out. As long as the players are having fun, it's working out in my opinion.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Wow' date=' I wrote this thread and took a day off from it because I was so busy yesterday. It's really exploded! [/quote']

 

I really love this sort of thread, Erkenfresh. Thank you for starting it. It engendered an exchange of views on topics ranging from whether: (i) any action can be deemed to be 'heroic' if it's also illegal, (ii) if "All's fair in Love and War," then what constitutes 'War,' (iii) there were innocent civilians on the Death Star (including infants and/or civilian employees of a Subway franchise).

 

Having grown up with Bronze Age comics books where, because of the Comics Code Authority, super heroes did not kill, I personally prefer super hero RPGs that way, too.

 

But that's very clearly an artificial world full of unique genre conventions. Analyzing that with the jaundiced eye of an adult in the real world, one who also views Osama bin Laden as the nearest equivalent to a real world super villain in my lifetime, I've personally concluded that there are many actions "Four Color" super hero characters would never take which nonetheless would still be 'heroic,' even in certain limited instances where the conduct is also illegal. My views on this are shaped in part by my supposition that, if a Dr. Destroyer-type super villain existed in the real world, the United States and other countries (along with their native super heroes) would initiate a long-term, coordinated "War on Terror"-type mission to capture or kill that super villain. And like the Death Star, where the loss of life was incidental to the primary goal of destroying the super-weapon on board, the potential killing of that super-villain (whether in battle or while asleep or otherwise unconscious) would be regarded as an incidental loss of life which was a regrettable, but perhaps necessary, consequence of achieving the real goal: destroying the super weapon (i.e. the villain's super powers). And that killing, when they day came, wouild be celebrated as 'Heroic' without almost any regard for the actual circumstances.

[kahuna's bro]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

there isa simple reasong whysuper-heroes shoud not kill their opponents

the ensuing grief isn't worth it

[Clonus]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Presumably' date=' that includes medics and medical personnel. Are they valid targets? Should we shoot them first to minimize medical assistance to the soldiers?[/quote']

 

Not if they're flying around in an unarmed ship with a red cross on it.

 

 

We have to make assumptions about the populace of a military base/vehicle the size of a small moon, since we have no real world equivalent. USO style entertainers seem possible. If we ignore anyone else who may have been civilian support personnel, however, do you think the base held a full cell block (or more - was that the only one on the entire small moon sized Death Star?) just to imprison Leia for a couple of days, or were there other non-DS personnel prisoners? or even one or more objectors to just blowing up a planet full of people tossed in the bring for insubordination?

 

No, I don't. I think the cell blocks were there to hold rebel leaders and troops after they surrendered and they hadn't had time to collect any surrenders yet.

[Cassandra]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Star Wars isn't a superhero movie. It's an scifi adventure movie set during a civil war. The morality of destroying the Death Star by her heroes is clear based on the Empire's willing to use the planet killer weapon on populated worlds.

 

Superheroes may face criminals who are willing to kill, and may have to put themselves in the line of fire in order to protect the innocent. This does not give them license to kill in either a superhero world, or in real life for that matter.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Not if they're flying around in an unarmed ship with a red cross on it.

 

In order to actually assist wounded combatants, one must land the ship and depart to help them. The proposition has been made that active support of the troops makes the individual a valid target, just as if he were fighting the war himself. Medics actively assist the troops, don't they?

 

No' date=' I don't. I think the cell blocks were there to hold rebel leaders and troops after they surrendered and they hadn't had time to collect any surrenders yet.[/quote']

 

The Emperor didn't strike me as the "jail my opponents" type, but the DS was certainly operational for only a limited time and may not have had time to accumulate many prisoners. But then, why freight Leia out there rather than imprison her elsewhere? She doesn't need to be on the DS bridge to be patched in to their communications and see Alderaan explode.

[Guest dan2448]

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

 

Star Wars isn't a superhero movie. It's an scifi adventure movie set during a civil war. The morality of destroying the Death Star by her heroes is clear based on the Empire's willing to use the planet killer weapon on populated worlds.

 

I fully recognize that the genres are different. I raised the issue of the destruction of the Death Star originally because it is universally known and because it is a good fictional example, I think, of how 'heroic' action can be simultaneously 'heroic' and hugely destructive/lethal to the point of murderous (even to innocents who become 'collateral damage').

 

I agree that what makes such an action 'heroic,' despite killing 1.2 million people, is the colossal threat posed by the Death Star to wreak exponentially more death and destruction.

 

I personally see a strong parallel between the Death Star and master super villains like Dr. Destroyer.

 

Superheroes may face criminals who are willing to kill' date=' and may have to put themselves in the line of fire in order to protect the innocent. [/quote']

 

Indeed.

 

 

This does not give them license to kill in either a superhero world' date=' or in real life for that matter.[/quote']

 

I'm not at all clear how this final conclusion flows from the prior assertions, however.

 

If, for example, a super hero faced the imminent threat of death while fighting a super villain, that certainly would give the super hero license to kill, legally speaking (under the doctrine of self-defense). I don't think most people would consider any such action immoral either. Additionally, it would likely be celebrated by the public, almost without concern for the specific circumstances (as was Osama bin Laden's death).