Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

[Christopher]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

The trick is for Superman to his him. Even with his CSL HTH Combat +1 Superman would only hit Spider-Man on a roll or 8 or less. Spider-Man however only has to roll a 14- to hit Superman for all the good it would do.

Spreading HTH-Attack. The one way Bricks can hit the Martial Artist and the reason MA's only have mediocre defenses - so they take damage from a Attack with -6 DC, +5 OCV.

 

No. The fact that there was a fourth bomb Superman didn't know about doesn't make Superman a bad guy. What it does is puts Superman in a worse situation when the villain repeats the process and tells Superman "sorry' date=' you can't just cheat your way around the problem. Now here's the exact same dilemma again". Now Superman is in a position where he really has to face "let myself be killed or let other people be killed". He knows that if he tries to dance around it with some trick there's a high likelihood that more people will die.[/quote']

The doom patrol (a DC superhero team) once had to made the choice:

http://scans-daily.dreamwidth.org/1035895.html

 

And there was at least one Isntance where superman did die to save people - namely his Death by Doomsday.

 

So this is not a hypothetical question, we know exaclty what he would do.

Wich is why he isn't placed into that dilemma as often - the reviving would get annoying.

 

Also note that in my example this isn't a crazy badguy who wants to force Superman to compromise his principles. He's genuinely hoping that Superman will stick to them so he can kill him.

Superman isn't exaclty know to "hunt you to the end of the world". He wouldn't hunt you to non-american soil. So it is easy to escape him without killing him.

 

Sorry, but if your villain aims to kill superman he is not a normal criminal, he is out for blood. There is nothing to be archieved by killing superman, you can't also archieve with delaying him/preventing him from interfering.

If your villain has to equal option and chooses the one that kills superman, we do talk about a crazy madmen.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

...Wich is why he isn't placed into that dilemma as often - the reviving would get annoying...

Again, not helping the argument that the genre is somewhat superficial.

Superman isn't exaclty know to "hunt you to the end of the world". He wouldn't hunt you to non-american soil. So it is easy to escape him without killing him... There is nothing to be archieved by killing superman, you can't also archieve with delaying him/preventing him from interfering.

Sure there is. I can now commit crimes in America without worrying about Superman. If I simply neutralize him through some threat I have to worry that he might figure out some way to escape and come after me. If he's dead and I'm not relying on genre knowledge (which well written characters shouldn't) that he always comes back to life then I don't have to worry about him figuring out how to slip out of whatever it is I'm using to tie him up in knots.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Spreading HTH-Attack. The one way Bricks can hit the Martial Artist and the reason MA's only have mediocre defenses - so they take damage from a Attack with -6 DC' date=' +5 OCV.[/quote']

You can't spread a HtH attack. In both 5th and 6th edition it is limited to ranged attacks. In 4th it is limited to "energy blasts" (and my guess for the change in wording was to address issues with someone rules-lawyering an Energy Blast with no range instead of purchasing the HtH Attack power so they could add it to their strength and spread it although it could be so that you can spread Flash attacks, RKAs, or other ranged attacks).

[Cassandra]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Madman threatens to kill innocents if Superhero doesn't show up. Classic situation.

 

Hero shows up, and seems to manage to save the day, then the villain sets off a bomb somewhere else that kills other innocents.

 

Who is responsible?

 

The Villain.

 

It's just that simple.

 

I've seen people say Superman's morality is outdated, but ask yourself this. Is Batman responsible for the Joker's victims after he escapes from Arkham?

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Nothing has been presented here that is in any way challenging to Superman's morality.

 

Personally, if I was him and was chasing the Guy Who Always Escapes, I'd engineer things so he enters Jim Corrigan's jurisdiction. Let the Spectre judge him, turn him to cheese, and feed him to rats.

 

Problem solved.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

...I've seen people say Superman's morality is outdated...

Strawman. I'm not saying it's outdated. I'm saying it doesn't function in a non-superficial universe (basically because it gets him killed). Two totally different things.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Nothing has been presented here that is in any way challenging to Superman's morality...

Except for the fact that in a non-superficial universe it would get him killed.

 

That's kind of a challenge.

 

Everyone wants to argue 'villains shouldn't do that' and 'it's not Superman's fault' and 'Batman will save him' and 'you're breaking genre'.

 

For B I would say that yes, you're right, it isn't Superman's fault. For A, C, and D I would say that those statements do nothing to disprove that he operates in a superficial world (and I guess B doesn't disprove it either).

 

Again, that is all I am saying. Read carefully. I am not saying Superman is a bad character. I'm not saying Rust age comics are better. I'm not saying I like Star Trek is better than Star Wars or peanut butter is better than jelly or that the sky isn't blue.

[Ranxerox]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

You're missing the point. The point was that Superman's morals only work in a world that operates somewhat superficially. The comment about Lex Luthor was meant to dispel the argument that "Batman will just find the bad guy regardless of the precautions said bad guy takes".

 

Of course that was absolutely the wrong argument for me to take as the proper response should have been "so you're arguing that Batman can automagically find any criminal in time to save the day but the style isn't superficial?"

 

Ultimately this is just degenerating into a pointless argument. Its like me saying that Star Wars' physics don't make a lot of sense and all sorts of people who want Star Wars to be better than Star Trek jump in and say "yes it does!".

 

They then proceed to pretzel things around in all sorts of illogical ways to make it possible for x-wings to fly in space like fighter airplanes and say "See! The physics works!" completely ignoring that both A) forcing the physics to "work" still doesn't mean it makes sense since people have to go to all sorts of outrageous contrivances to make it even possible (and "possible" and "sensible" aren't the same thing) and that I'm not saying "Star Trek is better than Star Wars".

 

Yes, I said I have a preference. That's not the same as saying that A is better than B.

 

The bombs in the schools was your example. Don't gripe when people reply to the specific example that you give.

 

I responded to your example by bringing in Batman, because your example was straight out of a comic book itself. Given the "superficiality" of your example what is the point in giving a response that assumes a more complex universe? You come up with a plot that only Lex Luther or the Joker could pull off and cry foul when I bring in Batman. In something closer to real life, your criminal mastermind would get ratted out by one of his henchmen or the people who sold him the explosives before the explosives were ever planted. For that matter the explosives wouldn't even be real, they would fake explosives provided by undercover FBI agents.

 

You see the bad guys always getting beaten by the superhero as opposed to being taken down by the local SWAT team is also a genre convention. In real life law enforcement can be extremely competent, and would totally curb stomp a lot a of supervillains. The genre conventions ultimately do as much to protect the villains as the heroes.

 

So, if you want to talk about a world with Superman but without genre conventions we can do that. In such a world, Superman would have to change many things about his methods. He would not however find it necessary to abandon his beliefs or get killed. People far squishier than the Man of Steel with belief systems just as demanding manage to function in our world, I see no reason that Superman couldn't also. To convince me otherwise you are going to have to do a lot better than some stolen from a comic book/action movie bomb plot. That is just Space 1999 ragging on the physics of Star Wars and Star Trek. It certainly isn't real life.

[ayinde]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

this is a intriguing conversation but I feel I should ask how is this on topic for the thread?

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

The bombs in the schools was your example. Don't gripe when people reply to the specific example that you give.

That wasn't the specific example I gave. That was conflating two different examples. I say, "Here's a bad guy". You respond "Superman can call in Batman because Batman can capture any criminal." I respond with "Like he's captured Lex Luthor?" That isn't the same as saying that Lex Luthor was blowing up a school.

 

"...Given the "superficiality" of your example...

 

How is my example superficial? My example shows a person trying to think things through logically and to the ultimate conclusion (despite the fact that I take a lot of precaution Superman might figure out how to work around what I've done so I should probably use a cutout and then punish Superman for "cheating" so he doesn't do it again).

 

You come up with a plot that only Lex Luther or the Joker could pull off and cry foul when I bring in Batman.

Actually, I was going to point out that I'm only a reasonable clever person. If we're silly an we assume I am in the top .01% of clever people in the world then I am one in 10,000. In a world with a bit over 7 billion people that means there are about 700,000 people as clever, or more clever, than I am, and we are already starting with a silly assumption about what percentage I'm at.

 

In something closer to real life, your criminal mastermind would get ratted out by one of his henchmen or the people who sold him the explosives before the explosives were ever planted. For that matter the explosives wouldn't even be real, they would fake explosives provided by undercover FBI agents.

Yes. Because Timothy McVeigh had a huge truckload of fake explosives, which especially proves your argument since he was such a criminal genius.

 

You see the bad guys always getting beaten by the superhero as opposed to being taken down by the local SWAT team is also a genre convention. In real life law enforcement can be extremely competent, and would totally curb stomp a lot a of supervillains. The genre conventions ultimately do as much to protect the villains as the heroes.

Absolutely true, and it does absolutely nothing to prove that the genre isn't superficial.

 

So, if you want to talk about a world with Superman but without genre conventions we can do that. In such a world, Superman would have to change many things about his methods. He would not however find it necessary to abandon his beliefs or get killed...

Tell you what, come up with a solution that doesn't include someone automagically locating a person who has taken reasonable precautions (the cutout doesn't know who the head criminal is because he's receiving his orders through burner phones and communicates back through classified ads and we assume the head criminal isn't foolish enough to do something like drive around without license plates like McVeigh) and that doesn't include Superman's death or Superman compromising his principles and I'll believe you.

[dmjalund]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Lex luthor is also protected by comic convention, sure multibillionaires can get away with a lot - but not that much!

[Christopher]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

[...]

The point where you feel the need to deconstruct other peoples posts sentence by sentence, is usually the point at wich you stopped discussing and are just focussing on being right/the other guy being wrong.

 

I am going to ignore your discussion from now on. I can only advise the others to do the same. Maybe we then get something about Gods with off Switches/Loaded Guns and DC/Marvel Morality again.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Sorry you feel that I am not trying to discuss things.

 

I have tried repeatedly to make it clear that in the broader picture (can you enjoy reading Superman) that I am not saying "No you can't". In fact I enjoy reading them from time to time. It's just not my favorite thing. I make a statement supporting my own preference that is roughly the equivalent of 'the science in Star Wars is kind of soft' and I'm suddenly the one being told I'm wrong.

 

Ultimately though I suspect you are right. I think we are all at an impasse and will have to agree to disagree.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

If we are to assume the genre conventions don't apply, what do the conventional authorities do in our "Superman, turn over enough Green K to let me kill you" scenario? Do the world governments, who have relied on Superman literally saving the planet numerous times over, let Supes proceed as he sees fit, or do they take action to prevent the gathering or delivery of the green K?

 

Where is it being handed over? How is that communicated to Supes so that only he will know where the drop site is so no one else can intercept it? If we are supposing a world without genre conventions, then they are replaced by the conventions of our new genre, are they not? Those conventions need to be defined if the scenario is to be assessed.

[massey]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Most of the time, Superman operates as Divine Fireman. People trapped in a burning building? Superman swoops down and saves them when no one else can. Car stuck on the railroad tracks? Superman swoops down and saves you. Cat stuck in a tree? Superman swoops down and saves it. That's like 99% of Superman's day. Occasionally he stops a crime. There are still muggings and bank robberies and things like that that take place in Metropolis. Most of those happen very quietly and don't even attract the attention of a guy with super-hearing. But sometimes he's nearby, and he saves people. His goal, more than catching the bad guy, is saving the innocent people. He'll let the bad guy get away so he can save the helpless person. That's why people love Superman. Now, he's powerful enough to catch the bad guy most of the time. Bank robbers shoot at him (of course he catches the bullets so they don't accidentally ricochet and hurt anybody) and then he grabs them, and everyone cheers.

 

Superman can operate that way in even this gritty, dark, real world of ours. I don't see anything that will challenge his morality most of the time. But that doesn't account for supervillains.

 

Knowing Superman operates the way he does, many supervillains would be content with a distraction. They have tied a helpless woman to railroad tracks on the other side of the city. Any moment now, she will be crushed by a train. Superman flies away to save her, the villain gets away. But here we have the example of the psycho villain, the one who wants to blow up a bunch of innocents. And kill Superman. How does Superman get around the 4 bomb plot?

 

Well, we'll say the villain has some heinous scheme. "Disarm any of these bombs, Superman, and the others will explode!" So Superman uses his powers creatively to disarm all the bombs and avoid any problems... until the bomb no one told him about explodes and kills a bunch of people. "Ha, Superman, no cheating!" says the villain. The villain then repeats his demand that Superman bring him a bunch of kryptonite so he can be killed. There are actually like a hundred more bombs in the city, and if Superman doesn't comply, everyone dies! So what does the hero do?

 

Superman's code versus killing has always scaled with his powers. The Silver Age Superman, with his total code against killing, will always stop the villain. The power is there on his character sheet in the form of that 250 point Variable Power Pool. Area of Effect, Megascale Dispel vs bomb. Special effect: superspeed. "Not only did I disable the three bombs you planted in the schools, I also disabled the other hundred and one bombs you had planted throughout the city. You don't think I'd take you at your word, did you? Oh, I also followed you back here thanks to all the clues you left on your bombs (microscopic vision x1 billion is very useful for reading DNA). Off to jail with you, villain!" Superman did this kind of crap all the time with Lex Luthor back in the 60s and 70s. He was always powerful enough to avoid any "no win scenario". Sometimes he'd fake his own death. Sometimes he'd use a Superman robot as a stand-in. Regardless, he always won because Silver Age Superman was built on ten thousand points.

 

A less powerful version of Superman may not have that option. But then, he has to consider other factors. Even if he lets the villain kill him, what guarantee does he have that the villain won't kill all the children anyway? He doesn't. At that point, Superman's morality forces him to protect the most people possible. That's not done by killing himself and allowing the evil villain to torment the city forever. It's done by finding and capturing the villain.

[Midas]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

How buff would a non powered Clark Kent be?

 

 

Superman's code versus killing has always scaled with his powers. The Silver Age Superman, with his total code against killing, will always stop the villain. The power is there on his character sheet in the form of that 250 point Variable Power Pool. Area of Effect, Megascale Dispel vs bomb. Special effect: superspeed.

 

That is an interesting concept. Given that Supe's powers are of a fairly limited list, I'd go with Multipower or resurrect Elemental Control rather than VPP, but let's go with the VPP framework. Let us also handwave "Powers that shouldn't go in a frame" rules for this argument (buy them with Cost End, whatever).

 

VPP: Kryptonian Powers: 250 point pool

+2 Cosmic

Conditional: Only works in the vicinity of a yellow star (DMO on what that limitation's discount is)

Limited: Doesn't work in the presence of green kryptonite. (as above).

Limited: Defensive powers don't work against magic (-1/4 at best, unless a magical villain is a hunted).

 

What I'm looking at here, is with the above limitations, what would Clark Kent do when the Off Switch is triggered?

 

IMO, he's still a Superman, with maxed stats for a non powered character, including some criminology skills. He's not as good as Bruce at getting into the mind of the villain, but he's a pretty fair strategist, still. He's actually *out-thought* chess player villains when necessary (and to be fair, it doesn't come up that often, because he didn't need to).

 

Now let's add in a SUSC: Green Kryptonite - really max it out, so that when he takes stun from it, it counts as a stun in the "check vs CON" sense.

 

Here I think we have an interesting role play situation: "Your character has lost all his super powers, and is quite literally dying where he stands. What are you going to do?"

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

...A less powerful version of Superman may not have that option. But then' date=' he has to consider other factors. Even if he lets the villain kill him, what guarantee does he have that the villain won't kill all the children anyway? He doesn't. At that point, Superman's morality forces him to protect the most people possible. That's not done by killing himself and allowing the evil villain to torment the city forever. It's done by finding and capturing the villain.[/quote']

The only argument I have with this is that it violates the part of Superman's morality I've been referring to, as generally written (at least pre-52), which is sort of my point. It is easy to have him say that he would sacrifice himself to save a stranger (or relatively small group group of strangers) because of course it doesn't come up, despite the fact that (genre restrictions aside) it probably would.

 

Please, please, please don't flame me for saying that (and I'm not referring to you specifically Massey but to anyone reading this). Don't say it would break genre. I know it would. Don't say you don't want to read such stories. I know you don't. Truth to tell I don't have any interest in reading such stories. That's not and has never been my point.

 

I was going to say at one point that I would probably enjoy Superman more if he occasionally had to wrestle with such issues, recognizing that with his abilities he is often responsible for saving millions if not billions of people and that he can't sacrifice himself (and I mean sacrifice, not put himself in harm's way) to save a few thousand. The truth though is I probably wouldn't enjoy such a thing. It doesn't sit well on him. He's too well established and having him have to make such decisions works about as well as having Batman wrestle with whether he should put a bullet in the Joker. It is too far out of the established character.

 

My whole point has simply been that that aspect of Superman's personality is superficial (I'm not even saying that every part of his personality is superficial). Maybe it's the word "superficial" that has people upset because it has so many negative connotations. I chose the word because it stems from super "above, over" + facies "form, face". My feeling is that this aspect of his personality only works as long as you don't 'dig beneath the surface'. If I thought it would alleviate the problem I might use the word "unrealistic" but unfortunately saying that something is unrealistic in a comic book is sort of a 'yeah, so's everything else' kind of position.

 

And again, it has never been my intention to tell anyone that they can't enjoy Superman. I'm not even saying that I don't sometimes enjoy Superman. I'm not saying he has no depth, he should have more depth, or he needs this aspect of his personality rewritten.

[massey]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

The only argument I have with this is that it violates the part of Superman's morality I've been referring to, as generally written (at least pre-52), which is sort of my point. It is easy to have him say that he would sacrifice himself to save a stranger (or relatively small group group of strangers) because of course it doesn't come up, despite the fact that (genre restrictions aside) it probably would.

 

Please, please, please don't flame me for saying that (and I'm not referring to you specifically Massey but to anyone reading this). Don't say it would break genre. I know it would. Don't say you don't want to read such stories. I know you don't. Truth to tell I don't have any interest in reading such stories. That's not and has never been my point.

 

I was going to say at one point that I would probably enjoy Superman more if he occasionally had to wrestle with such issues, recognizing that with his abilities he is often responsible for saving millions if not billions of people and that he can't sacrifice himself (and I mean sacrifice, not put himself in harm's way) to save a few thousand. The truth though is I probably wouldn't enjoy such a thing. It doesn't sit well on him. He's too well established and having him have to make such decisions works about as well as having Batman wrestle with whether he should put a bullet in the Joker. It is too far out of the established character.

 

My whole point has simply been that that aspect of Superman's personality is superficial (I'm not even saying that every part of his personality is superficial). Maybe it's the word "superficial" that has people upset because it has so many negative connotations. I chose the word because it stems from super "above, over" + facies "form, face". My feeling is that this aspect of his personality only works as long as you don't 'dig beneath the surface'. If I thought it would alleviate the problem I might use the word "unrealistic" but unfortunately saying that something is unrealistic in a comic book is sort of a 'yeah, so's everything else' kind of position.

 

And again, it has never been my intention to tell anyone that they can't enjoy Superman. I'm not even saying that I don't sometimes enjoy Superman. I'm not saying he has no depth, he should have more depth, or he needs this aspect of his personality rewritten.

 

Superman's value relative to that of the rest of the Earth is something that would probably make him uncomfortable. He's familiar with the Nazi ubermensch concept, and doesn't like it. I don't think anyone else would like it if he started subscribing to that philosophy either. He becomes less the good-natured Kansas farmboy and more the dark overlord.

 

How buff would a non powered Clark Kent be?

 

That is an interesting concept. Given that Supe's powers are of a fairly limited list, I'd go with Multipower or resurrect Elemental Control rather than VPP, but let's go with the VPP framework. Let us also handwave "Powers that shouldn't go in a frame" rules for this argument (buy them with Cost End, whatever).

 

 

My writeup for Clark would vary depending on what background I want him to have. For instance, the Superman 2 Clark clearly was a baseline wimp. After he loses his powers he gets beaten up by a trucker.

 

Several years ago our group fooled around with a Marvel/DC combined universe, where characters generally appeared whenever they first appeared in comics. So in 2012, Superman has been kicking around for nearly 75 years. "Clark" (I'm sure he'd have used a few new identities by this point) from that world would probably be superhuman due to his Golden Age background. Even without yellow sun, he's probably a 40 Str or so due to his high gravity genes.

 

Regarding the VPP, that's there for a lot of reasons. Normally Supes' heat vision might be a 5D6 RKA or 15D6 Energy Blast. But it could just as easily be a Transform, or an Area Effect NND, or something else. The visual is the same, energy shoots out of Superman's eyes. But the power writeup is different. Superbreath might be Dispel vs Tornado, or a Summon: Tornado. Then you get weird things like Dimensional Movement, Usable Against Others, OAF, when he flies to the Fortress of Solitude and zips right back with a Phantom Zone Projector. And what about when he uses crazy combinations of powers, like flying into outer space faster than light, then turning around and using his telescopic vision so that the photons that left Earth two weeks ago are just now hitting his eyeballs, so he can see into the past? I guess you could put a ton of multipower slots on there, but for the effect I want a VPP is a lot easier.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

...That is an interesting concept. Given that Supe's powers are of a fairly limited list' date=' I'd go with Multipower or resurrect Elemental Control rather than VPP, but let's go with the VPP framework. Let us also handwave "Powers that shouldn't go in a frame" rules for this argument (buy them with Cost End, whatever)..[/quote']

I always thought that VPP was meant for something that was a bit more of a 'limited by imagination' kind of thing. By this I don't mean literally limited only by imagination but things that might prove difficult to simulate through more mundane powers such as weather control (I've done weather control with a multipower but it seemed like you always ended up realizing you didn't have the powers to simulate some weather effect like how a sandstorm can abraid windshields and goggles, or ice causing a ceiling to collapse, or something). Things that worked well as a VPP were things like Weather Control, sorcery, gadget pools, always changing powers like Dial H for Hero, Green Lantern's ring, etc.

 

Like you said, Superman's powers are fairly defined (I hesitate to use the word limited). Sure, he seemed to pull out really weird uses of his powers every so often but I think you can attribute that more to power stunts than a full blown VPP.

 

I would also hesitate to put his powers into an EC (if they still existed). An EC was suppose to be a reward for having powers that were tightly linked together (such as fire powers giving you a blast, killing attack, flash attack, and resistance to fire). It wasn't really suppose to be because you could claim a connection between powers (I have an energy blast, flight, and superstrength because of solar energy).

 

I suspect that the reason for the ultimate removal of ECs was because a lot of the time they didn't stand up that well to a multipower anyway (almost always better to put all your attacks into a multipower) and because they were giving players a reward for something they already should have been doing (which lead to the implication that its fine to build a character who was a complete mishmash of powers, you just wouldn't get a bonus for it).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

I always thought that VPP was meant for something that was a bit more of a 'limited by imagination' kind of thing. By this I don't mean literally limited only by imagination but things that might prove difficult to simulate through more mundane powers such as weather control (I've done weather control with a multipower but it seemed like you always ended up realizing you didn't have the powers to simulate some weather effect like how a sandstorm can abraid windshields and goggles, or ice causing a ceiling to collapse, or something). Things that worked well as a VPP were things like Weather Control, sorcery, gadget pools, always changing powers like Dial H for Hero, Green Lantern's ring, etc.

 

Like you said, Superman's powers are fairly defined (I hesitate to use the word limited). Sure, he seemed to pull out really weird uses of his powers every so often but I think you can attribute that more to power stunts than a full blown VPP.

 

I would also hesitate to put his powers into an EC (if they still existed). An EC was suppose to be a reward for having powers that were tightly linked together (such as fire powers giving you a blast, killing attack, flash attack, and resistance to fire). It wasn't really suppose to be because you could claim a connection between powers (I have an energy blast, flight, and superstrength because of solar energy).

 

I suspect that the reason for the ultimate removal of ECs was because a lot of the time they didn't stand up that well to a multipower anyway (almost always better to put all your attacks into a multipower) and because they were giving players a reward for something they already should have been doing (which lead to the implication that its fine to build a character who was a complete mishmash of powers, you just wouldn't get a bonus for it).

 

The key relationship between Multipowers & VPP's:

After a certain number of slots it is cheaper to convert a Multipower to a VPP with the "Cosmic" Advantages (which the rule books going back to 4e describe as a Multipower with an infinite # of slots.

 

Here is a 400 point starting version of Superman built around a VPP with the Unified Limitation (the simplified replacement for Elemental Control - the point saving in both cases stemming from the drain-one-drain-all negative aspect). What slots are built out for the VPP just have to be agreed upon by the Player & GM ahead of time. The included slots are just an example sampling.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Back to the subject at hand, I'm going to take the Captain Kirk route amnd Take option c. My absolute favorites and the Timm/Diniverse animated versions of the DC characters which are definately not "gods with off switches" but often pretty complex folks with interesting interactions who are heavily challenged all the time.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

esampson reading your posts I personally think you're way out on planet 10 or somewhere and can't follow your logic to even refute it its so bizarre IMO.

 

 

Are you suggesting you can't allow to higher standard than the rest of the world? No mother Teresa etc.

[esampson]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

esampson reading your posts I personally think you're way out on planet 10 or somewhere and can't follow your logic to even refute it its so bizarre IMO.

 

 

Are you suggesting you can't allow to higher standard than the rest of the world? No mother Teresa etc.

 

Sorry about that. I tried to make it clear. My basic problem is that I find a lot of aspects of DC to be a little over simplified (that's probably the word I should have used at the start). My example about Superman was to show that while could have higher standards than the rest of the world over simplified standards such as those often attributed to Superman would get him killed despite his powers. Certainly even a complex world can support Mother Theresa as she doesn't fight crime.

 

Given your earlier statement about the Timm/Diniverse I suspect you can understand my original motivations better than you think.

[assault]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Sorry about that. I tried to make it clear. My basic problem is that I find a lot of aspects of DC to be a little over simplified (that's probably the word I should have used at the start). My example about Superman was to show that while could have higher standards than the rest of the world over simplified standards such as those often attributed to Superman would get him killed despite his powers. Certainly even a complex world can support Mother Theresa as she doesn't fight crime.

 

In my view, the entire discussion is nonsense from start to finish. Where to begin?

 

First of all, comics are a form of art, not reality. Superhero comics, in particular, are radically separated from reflecting reality by the key assumptions of the genre - superpowers and so on. Also, as works of art, they have goals other than reflecting reality. (That's an important aspect of Superman - and Captain America and Wonder Woman among others).

 

Furthermore, even if reflecting reality was their goal, they can only do so in a limited and partial way. In particular, they will always reflect the viewpoint and prejudices of the creative staff behind them, not to mention company policies, social conventions and so on.

 

So, fundamentally, saying DC is "over simplified" is, to put it mildly, completely missing the point.

 

There's also an interesting little hole in your argument where you specify DC. You haven't made any attempt to prove that Marvel is any different! (Other publishers can be ignored for the moment).

 

It's generally accepted that Marvel managed to break new ground in the early-mid 60s, and DC had to run to catch up. But that was 40-50 years ago, and the two have been influencing each other and exchanging personnel ever since. Julius Schwartz and Gardner Fox are dead.

 

My argument is that there is no real difference between them any more. Of course, to properly prove that would require a more intimate knowledge of present day Marvel output than I possess.

 

I will, however, point out that Captain America, Thor and Spider-Man certainly share much of Superman's attitude. How do you think they would fare in the the four schools situation? Why aren't they dead?

 

And there's much more to DC than Superman. In fact, he doesn't appear in any of the titles I am currently reading. I'll go through them with you:

 

Dial H. Fat unemployed guy who lives in a slum finds a "magic" gizmo and becomes addicted to using it.

 

Earth-2. Apokolips invades a parallel universe. Before they are defeated, Superman, Wonder Woman, Batman and Lois Lane are dead. Robin and Supergirl are missing. Eventually, new heroes emerge. Despite the devastation of the war, this is not a cr*psack world.

 

World's Finest. The adventures of Robin and Supergirl after they go missing, and find themselves in what is apparently the main DC universe. Robin steals money from the Wayne Foundation to support them, while Supergirl mines rare earth metals. Both adopt new identities - the Huntress and Power Girl.

 

Legion of Superheroes. The characters are adults, have relationships and even children. Despite dark moments, the universe isn't actively out to get them.

 

Legion Lost. A group of Legion members lost in the present day. The most "Marvel like" of these titles. It will probably be cancelled within the next year or so, and I won't particularly miss it.

 

There's nothing over simplified in these titles.

 

To briefly return to Marvel: why is it over simplified that Batman can maintain and operate the Batplane, while it's not a problem that Tony Stark can to the same to his armour? (I don't know if his identity is publicly known in the comics at the moment, but it certainly wasn't for a long time). Likewise, how could the X-Men operate their jet for so long without anyone noticing?

 

Applying the same criteria to Marvel as to DC would be nice.

 

I'm a bit over this discussion, so I'll let you have the last word unless you say something really interesting.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Gods with Off Switches vs. Loaded Guns. DC vs. Marvel in Character Design.

 

Question: Would your Superman lose all his powers?

 

I always like the wording of Superman's magic limitation in DC Heroes: Abilities operate at a max of 4 APs versus magic.

IE he was just a slightly-below normal man versus magical stuff. I didnt like the Kryptonite wording that much. (total loss)