Hugh Neilson

I got a text today saying that the little girl is coming home. I'm relieved, to be sure, but also sad and a little frustrated, that it had to have happened at all. 
 
I'll confess that I'm also afraid that certain of the more reactionary elements in my wife's family will look at this as proof that COVID-19 is no big deal and that they don't need to get vaccinated. 

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

First, I did not say "kept in prison indefinitely", I said "unemployable".
 
Second, I asked which crimes were similarly unforgivable, and did not suggest that all crimes are unforgivable. But I am not the one(s) suggesting that his actions were unforgivable either.
 
Finally, if we are addressing degrees of guilt, isn't a stupid choice of a hallowe'en costume decades ago pretty low?  More a misdemeanor than a felony; perhaps just a traffic violation?
 
If he had dressed up as Hannibal Lecter instead, would you be suggesting we keep him away from people under medical care, as we would not want to risk him deciding to have a snack?

So, having not read the Tim Drake "coming out" issues, I do not see passing judgment on whether they are well done or not being practical yet.  I quite liked the story revealing Ben's Jewish heritage (which was really a Thing solo story), building on past details of his youth. 

So, if we reveal that Ben Grimm is Jewish, it';s just hack writing.   Never mind that he grew up in an area with a high Jewish population, his name ("Benjamin Jacob Grimm") is quite consistent with being Jewish and his religion (Jewish or otherwise) has never cropped up, it's "hack writing"?  Ditto Colossal Boy, a character in an ensemble cast where we have never seen any indication of religion (especially being a thousand years in the future), turning out to be Jewish is "hack writing".
 
Would it have been better writing for everyone to be Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or agnostic, or atheist, because that is what you, one reader, imputed from the fact their religion had never been mentioned?  Maybe LSH should have assumed that religions which have already survived 2+ millennia would not make it another thousand years?  Black Manta should have been white because we'd never seen under  the helmet, and lots of people are white, so he must be white?
 
If a character is solidly straight (or Catholic) one issue, then securely bisexual (or Jewish) in the next, followed by being confidently homosexual (or an uncertain agnostic), and has been all his life, six months later, I'd call that hack writing.  Diving into character attributes that have never been solidly defined in past appearances?  Not so much.  Especially when a lot of that character's appearances have either been as a secondary character (Robin to Bruce's Batman) or part of an ensemble cast (the many Teen Titans books), not a solo star whose psyche and relationships have typically been front & center.
 
But we are back to the constant criticism of comics.  "Nothing ever changes - how boring!"  "You changed that?  YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!!!"

The typical office worker can open up applications that someone else installed and maybe print to a printer that was setup for them.   If the program is not on the start menu they will not be able to open it.  As far as knowledge of hardware or operating system that is almost non-existent If I were to give your typical office working a new wireless printer with no instruction or software 95% of the population would not be able to set it up.   The typical office worker does not have familiarity with computer programing they have PS office worker.   
 
Most people use a computer the same way they use a car.  Without really understanding how it works. Just because I can drive a car does not mean I have any skill at mechanics at all. 
 

Opening para of an opinion piece in the NYT today, written by a Christian member of the faculty at Duke Divinity School:

 
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/opinion/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandates.html

Is a lawyer required to bring a lawsuit forward, or can a cottage industry of self-represented litigants making their living as abortion law bounty hunters develop? How many cases, especially of that nature, would be settled by paying a claim to the individual initiating the lawsuit?  "Well, you can spend your resources to fight the claim, or pay me $1,000 now to make me go away, knowing that, if you lose, I get at least $10,000, plus my legal bills."  5 settled claims a  month on that basis is a $60,000 annual living. I suspect the Courts will take some action if they start to see huge numbers of such cases taking resources away from their other responsibilities.
 
I'm still waiting for a law to ban abstention.  "Those poor kids didn't even get a chance!"

Not if you want to have multiple swarms acting independently.  It all depends on the effect you're looking for.

Not if you want to have multiple swarms acting independently.  It all depends on the effect you're looking for.

I keep telling myself I will make that insect-based character who can Summon swarms of bugs some day...

I agree that the structure of Summon makes it awkward at best to use and suspect that the writers of Hero never actually used the power to test it out in practical play.  Yes, they're trying to keep it from being overpowered, but I think that they might have gone a bit overboard in that goal.
 
Possibly the best way to judge Summon would be against Mind Control because it gives roughly equivalent effect: an independently acting force carrying out orders.  Is the same level of point cost giving you roughly the same equivalent value in and out of combat?

What are they paying that initial 40 points for?  They could have had an 8 DC attack, +15/+15 defense, 10 resistant. +4 SPD or +4 OCV and +4 DCV.
 
I would suggest the creature's willingness to fight is both campaign-dependant and creature-dependent.  If you encountered this creature in a normal encounter, would it be similarly reluctant to engage in combat? Under this model, I think I would use Summon (if I used it at all) to Summon skill monkeys, transport, beasts of burden or similar, since you seem determined that the power not be useful for combat.

Comparison is tough as neither power is common.  Summon was created for fantasy games and Duplication for Supers games, so I doubt they were ever really reconciled to the other power.


 
Summon requires a full phase, and the creature arrives stunned.  Duplicates require a half phase, and can act in their next phase (or Abort in their next segment), so duplication has the advantage here.


 
If I have multiple Summons, I don’t need an advantage to Summon more than one at a time. That limits Duplication, although since Duplicates are not task-limited, Duplicating in advance is much more viable.


 
Summon costs END, and Duplication does not.  That’s a +1/4 Advantage for Duplication (compared to END only to activate).


 
Duplicates are affected by, and affect, the base character’s damage when duplicating and recombining, an issue Summons do not share.


 
The Summoned being has to be compelled to perform EGO/5 tasks, so what’s that?  4? Recall that one phase of combat is a task.  When the roll is missed, the Summoned being is free to act normally.


 
Amicable beings still limit the number of tasks they will perform.  I’d consider a Duplicate at least Loyal, and the cost of extra tasks is not factored in at that advantage level.


 
If I have Duplicates with altered powers, I generally get to design them.  Summons are generally designed by the GM or pulled from standard campaign creatures.


 
So, can I simulate Duplication with Summon?  Sure, I guess.  I’d need 0 END (+1/2) and probably Devoted (+3/4) at a minimum, it would still take a full phase and they would arrive Stunned.  I’d get [ego/2] tasks out of them, so let’s double that for another +1/4.  Total advantages +1 1/2.


 
I could put Full Phase on my Duplication (-1/2) and Time Limit 1 minute (-2) if I plan to use them as combatants (like Summoned Monsters).  So, for a 400 point character, Summon costs 200 points and Duplication costs 23.  That’s quite a spread.  If I want multiple duplicates, the spread would drop quickly due to

the advantage for Rapid Duplication, though.  
 
Like I said, many differences.  I agree that "duplicate dies means points lost" is problematic, and I'd house rule it away. Most other "points are gone forever" limitations (like Charges don't recover and Independent have been written out).  But Duplication was designed for Supers, where death is rare at best.
 
 
Or +5 to double duplicates, and limit that to not add to total available at any one time.  Either way, though, you're losing points due to the possibility of duplicates dying.  I'd rather remove the orhan rule and allow death of a duplicate to be "permanent" as a radiation accident only - reconfigure the points.

The creature summoned with the friendly advantage will probably not fight to the death, but will probably be ok with fighting in a lot of circumstances.  It will also depend on what you summon and if they have any complications that come into play.  You summon up an Angel and they will probably be willing to help you fighting a demon.   

The +1/4 Amicable says that the Summons wants to help the Summoner akin to Moderate Psych Lim and +1/2 becomes a Strong Psych Lim. Requiring the +3/4 Total Psych Lim level to enter combat seems to be counter to that. It also discounts the possibility that the Summons might be inclined to do the requested task naturally. A PC with a similar Psych would need a good reason not to do take the action and you don't summon cowardly creatures to fight battles for you. The Summons may flee after a few setbacks but an Advantaged Summons should get better performance than  a basic one where you have to win a contest of wills. 

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

But that doesn't address Duke's point.
 
For how long is this a black mark for you?  How far back, before it at least shifts to a yellow flag...let's see if he still thinks that way before we pillory him?
 
 

I am _hugely_ in favor of forgiveness, and I understand that people cuange as they grow and as they learn.  I think all of those things are good things.  Case in point: I was raised by a racist (despite the fact that he was in his forties before he ever met someone who wasnt white.  Go figure.  I am no different from any other human being on the planet: I entered my adulthood with the "right" and "wrong" I was taught as a child.  Was I racist?  Yeah; probably.  I never hated anybody, but I "knew" from my training that there was an "us" and a "them."
 
But I met people and I grew and I changed.
 
My first wife (rest her soul), as I have said before, was Irish.  She wasn't white, though.  She was adopted as an infant and was, in fact, Ethiopian, at least genetically.
 
Like I said: as you experience the larger world, you grow- or at least, you _should_.   
 
I completely accept that there are certain things that are harder to forgive.  However, the article admits the photo is decades old; the man in question says it was a stupid thing he did in his twenties (you know: the age bracket in which I just confessed to accidentally having drunken sex with a Polish body builder and loosing an entire motorcycle in another thread).
 
The popular thing is now the same as it always has been: leap! Attack!  Crucify!
 
Has anyone looked at all into his life between then and now?  Was it, as he states, a dumb idea to dress up in referrence to Blazing Saddles that has aged very poorly and become an even dumber thing in today's climate?
 
I am more struck that he resigned, and as far as the article doesnt suggest otherwise, of his own volition and without argument.  It seems very much as an understanding and accepting the consequences of his decades-old bad judgement.  It suggests he has grown considerably, and I would guess- based only on what the "article" has to say (and tha's on quptes because with no other attaemots at fact finding or investigation, this is more gossip than news.  My own opinion, sure, but it really comes off more as "hey everybody!  Look what he did!" than it does any attempt to provide an underatanding of the situation.
 
 
Maybe he grew; maybe he changed.  We can find out by digging into him a little bit more, but until that happens, I am not foing to crucify him, because I _know_ a heart can change.  Mine did.  Though honestly, it's starting to go full-circle: without any attempt at humor I can honestly sat that the climate here in the US the last few years and suring the pandemic has me slowly starting to have a general dislike of white people. 
 
 

It's tough to provide much without knowing your group.  Their preferences will decide a lot (e.g. maps) and their familiarity with the system is as important as yours - sounds like it's new for everyone.
 
It may help to have two character sheets.  One is the full-costed abilities sheet used for character design.  The other is for running the character in-game - describe how it works and ignore all the points.
 
Especially if everyone is learning, only learn what's relevant to the PCs and avoid unfamiliar abilities for opponents early on. Unless a PC has adjustment powers, sensory powers or mental powers, neither do the early bad guys.  You can learn those abilities later, when you're comfortable with the basics.
 
Nothing wrong with letting players revise their characters, or with a revision if you make a mistake early on (including "turns out that ability is unbalancing") either.
 
For sure, take player feedback.  But remember they asked you to run - if they don't appreciate the efforts, one of them could always run a game!
 
Actually, if you can tell us what about Champions appealed to the group, I suspect many here could offer some suggestions to better emulate those elements, and de-emphasize elements that may be less helpful, or even counterproductive.

It's tough to provide much without knowing your group.  Their preferences will decide a lot (e.g. maps) and their familiarity with the system is as important as yours - sounds like it's new for everyone.
 
It may help to have two character sheets.  One is the full-costed abilities sheet used for character design.  The other is for running the character in-game - describe how it works and ignore all the points.
 
Especially if everyone is learning, only learn what's relevant to the PCs and avoid unfamiliar abilities for opponents early on. Unless a PC has adjustment powers, sensory powers or mental powers, neither do the early bad guys.  You can learn those abilities later, when you're comfortable with the basics.
 
Nothing wrong with letting players revise their characters, or with a revision if you make a mistake early on (including "turns out that ability is unbalancing") either.
 
For sure, take player feedback.  But remember they asked you to run - if they don't appreciate the efforts, one of them could always run a game!
 
Actually, if you can tell us what about Champions appealed to the group, I suspect many here could offer some suggestions to better emulate those elements, and de-emphasize elements that may be less helpful, or even counterproductive.

Yeah, you creatively come up with 200 new villains per year for 60 years and creatively try to keep your comic book world from seeming like a huge joke of idiots donning a costume for the express purpose of shortly thereafter dying at the hands of "heroes".
 
 
 

So, if we reveal that Ben Grimm is Jewish, it';s just hack writing.   Never mind that he grew up in an area with a high Jewish population, his name ("Benjamin Jacob Grimm") is quite consistent with being Jewish and his religion (Jewish or otherwise) has never cropped up, it's "hack writing"?  Ditto Colossal Boy, a character in an ensemble cast where we have never seen any indication of religion (especially being a thousand years in the future), turning out to be Jewish is "hack writing".
 
Would it have been better writing for everyone to be Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or agnostic, or atheist, because that is what you, one reader, imputed from the fact their religion had never been mentioned?  Maybe LSH should have assumed that religions which have already survived 2+ millennia would not make it another thousand years?  Black Manta should have been white because we'd never seen under  the helmet, and lots of people are white, so he must be white?
 
If a character is solidly straight (or Catholic) one issue, then securely bisexual (or Jewish) in the next, followed by being confidently homosexual (or an uncertain agnostic), and has been all his life, six months later, I'd call that hack writing.  Diving into character attributes that have never been solidly defined in past appearances?  Not so much.  Especially when a lot of that character's appearances have either been as a secondary character (Robin to Bruce's Batman) or part of an ensemble cast (the many Teen Titans books), not a solo star whose psyche and relationships have typically been front & center.
 
But we are back to the constant criticism of comics.  "Nothing ever changes - how boring!"  "You changed that?  YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!!!"