Hugh Neilson

"Good" and "Evil" are very nebulous.  If the game is to use them as absolute concepts, it needs to provide absolute definitions.  We might disagree with whether "Game Defined Good" is actually "philosophical good", but if we have an in-game definition, unmodified by house rules, such as "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." then that is the definition.   My character may believe Good is about prioritizing innocent lives over every other choice, or the "Greatest Good for the Greatest Number" (no hesitation sacrificing one innocent person to save five, or killing Hitler as a baby, or all those trope moral dilemmas), or perhaps "my country" or "my religion" above all else, but his good is a compromise, or even a refutation, of Alignment Good.
 
The potential for disagreement is a reason to discuss and firm up Psych's in Hero as well, and evaluate the frequency and severity based on the player and GM conceptions. That may mean "I see Code vs Killing, Absolute Commitment" meaning that your character would only use lethal force (more than 6 DCs) against a known adversary who can reliably emerge uninjured; would be a vegetarian; would actively impede a teammate risking lives (including blasting an unknown enemy at full force); would save the villain from a death he has brought on himself, even at the risk of his own life - is your character that extreme, or did you want to downgrade that complication to be less severe?
 
That's obviously a very extreme view of C v K, but so is "What? Your Paladin killed the Orc prisoner who slaughtered villages of helpless peasants? He loses all his powers and changes alignment.", and similar issues which have caused such anti-alignment vitriol by many D&D players over the years.  If the GM and/or players view alignment, or psychological complications, or any other element of the game as role playing straightjackets that suck fun out of the game rather than providing opportunities for challenges and role playing that enhance enjoyment of the game, Duke's response - remove it from the game - is the right one.  Unfortunately, not everyone finds the same things fun.  If Charlie likes his character's morals and ethics to be challenged by a grey, dark world, and Pat does not enjoy playing out ethical dilemmas, and wants to be a True Blue Hero with right and wrong color-coded and hard-wired, either one of them has to compromise, or one of them needs to find a different game.

Absolutely. 
First he was a genius and then he was an evil idiot, all depending on which mob is crying. 
 
But there are many "regular" people that came up with a concept and turned it into a fortune, some even changing the world while they were at it.   Gates and Jobs went from being the "little guy making good" to "mega-corporate evil guy using slave labor". 
 
Writers are just another grouping.  Smart ones are flush with cash while the "not as smart" or "not as lucky" get little or no benefits from their original ideas. 
 
It isn't a matter of whether I agree with a case or not.  They just are. 
 
Bob has a great idea but dies not have any ability to bring it to reality.  So he approaches Sara who has the wealth and resources to bring the idea to life.  
Sara sinks millions of dollars, has the skills and knowledge to hire thousands of specialists required and the infrastructure to support them. 
After the thing takes off and the money rolls in, after all the moneys are re-paid, all the expenses are paid, the taxes and fees and licenses are paid.
After all that the actual remaining profit is determined.
Who gets what?  Who gets the larger portion.
Does Sara who bore all of the real world risk and put in the long hours and work wrangling the thousands of details needed to get something from concept to reality?
Does Bob who had an idea and spent time advising and critiquing the process?
 
I don't know and I definitely know I would not want to have to try and decide that.
 
But one thing I do know is that the "public" is notorious for loving the cheering on the underdog.   Right up till they become successful and they become that evil rich guy.
 
It is even worse for small startup companies.  Successful corporations are the modern equivalent of dark evil gods to be instantly hated by everyone. 
 
 
 

To me, killing is on the good/evil axis, which is why I like the focus on "respect for life" more recent editions have brought.  A Chaotic Good person respects everyone's right to freedom,  not just their own, and will not be cavalier about taking lives either.
 
 
D&D alignment started with only Law/Neutral/Chaos.  A White Dwarf article suggested that D&D then evolved as "Law = Good" and "Chaos = Evil", and cited Dr. Who and the Daleks as an example of a Good Chaotic hero and an Evil Lawful creature.  "Racial evil" differs, to me.  If all Orcs are the same alignment, and can never change, that's Racial Evil, but an Orcish society which is largely evil, with some exceptions, is not Racial Evil. Epic Fantasy calls for Good and Evil in some form.
 
The same disagreements happen with Hero psychological limitations all the time, as does the same "just treat them as occasional flavour bits". 
 
The "most humans" question falls to that "how extreme need one be?"  I like the idea that the vast majority of the population is N.  They have some compunctions about causing suffering, but not the willingness for personal sacrifice, so neith G nor E.  They like order to some extent, but not when they are constrained, so not fully L or C.  The heroes and their adversaries are the extremes - truly Good or despicably Evil; Law over all, or Freedom even unto Anarchy.
 
 
I don't think Chaos means "utterly random with no goals or objectives".  But an Evil person places no real value on life. "Because the Dad honked his horn when I cut him off in traffic."  "Because they might wake up and take umbrage at me looting their possessions."  "Because I like the feeling of power it gives me to kill people in their sleep."  As I consider on it, someone so truly insane that they cannot fathom any form of moral judgement is probably N, much like an animal, having no capacity for reason and therefore acting solely on instinct.

Fuck that shit.
 
Oh...wait...no.  Fuck, Covid.  That's better.

Silly from a realistic historical and sociological perspective, probably.  From a gaming and publishing perspective, what would the benefit of filling several pages up with the details of 1,700 years of rulership changes, naming each successive ruler in the Royal Family, and discussing changes to those Royal Families every few generations, with a rapid succession of rulers in times of turbulence, going from 2,000 years before the game begins to a mere 300 years past?  Recall that, 300 years ago, there were no United States.  Would you purchase a setting book that went through details of the leadership equivalent to summarizing the leadership in each US state (plus Federal and maybe some of the larger municipalities), before and after becoming a state, and any and all conflicts and border changes and the Federal level, from 1721 to 2021?  There's a sourcebook that would just FLY off the shelves!
 
 

Not TV, but I recall a comment on The Hunger Games - how would people really go for such a structure?  Well, perhaps not realistic, but very in tune with the teen mindset where any small issue feels like a matter of life and death.  "My hairstyle is wrong - my life is over!"

There are definitely Major differences between Canada and the US in the COVID response. Last September, after the Speech from the Throne (which opens sittings of government), the opposition leaders had media time to respond.  The Conservative leader, Erin O'Toole, was in self-isolation after a positive COVID test.  He spoke from his lawn. It was reported that a single aide was instructed to set up the camera, start it, and go sit in his car across the street, after which O'Toole came out, made his speech, and went back inside.  Once he was inside, the aide was allowed to leave his car and shut off the camera. O'Toole refused any plan where he would be within 6 feet of the camera, much less another person.  His speech is at https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/erin-otoole-throne-speech-2020-response-transcript/ and opened with:
 
 
A far cry from the Republican approach to COVID. As he had not seen any other speeches, he had no way of knowing that his opening words were pretty similar to the Prime Minister's address after the speech (the actual throne speech is delivered by the Governor General, officially the Queen's representative).  Both videos are linked at https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/throne-speech-trudeau-pandemic-covid-1.5736510.
 
While we have seen no shortage of political skirmishing on the handling of the pandemic, the politicization of masks and vaccines in the US thankfully did not cross the border into Canada.  But we have stupid individuals on both sides of the border - as Jimmy Buffett sings
 
 

I didn’t need APG to tell me “selective” + “accurate” = +3/4, but I suppose that makes it official.

Some short comments on an excellent, well-reasoned post.
 
 
Wargamers made up a lot of the early RPGers, many of whom are pretty contemptuous of the thespians.  "Role-playing" vs. "Game".  As I recall, the L3 thing was basic D&D, which eventually got "Expert" and above.  We started with Basic and bought Advanced. I am pretty sure OD&D, which included Balrogs, went well beyond 3rd level.
 
 
Oh, this for SURE. Even if you were big on TSR, they routinely published a boxed set, matbe a 3 part adventure and moved on.  Boot Hill,Top Secret, Gangbusters, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Metamorphasis Alpha - off the top of my head.
 
 
Sure.  We also read a lot of magazines with their suggested rules fixes and expansions.  Space Gamer, Different Worlds, White Dwarf and, of course, Dragon.  The demand for variants and expansions was  there right from the start.
 
 
I'd say the biggest issue was awareness.  We  had people then who would never play, and we have them now.  But now, RPGs are more familiar to more people.
 
 
We're older too, which often means "less time". We also, as we aged, added "more money to invest" to "less time to invest".  Now, I have the bucks to buy a honking big Adventure Path (that would have been what, 18 or so modules in the 1980s?), and no time to design adventures.  Then, I had lots of time and little cash.
 
But those early "more rules" books like Unearthed Arcana and Champions II and III sold pretty well.  The demand was there.  It was less known, but as it built, game developers and companies started producing fewer games, but with more support.
 

Some short comments on an excellent, well-reasoned post.
 
 
Wargamers made up a lot of the early RPGers, many of whom are pretty contemptuous of the thespians.  "Role-playing" vs. "Game".  As I recall, the L3 thing was basic D&D, which eventually got "Expert" and above.  We started with Basic and bought Advanced. I am pretty sure OD&D, which included Balrogs, went well beyond 3rd level.
 
 
Oh, this for SURE. Even if you were big on TSR, they routinely published a boxed set, matbe a 3 part adventure and moved on.  Boot Hill,Top Secret, Gangbusters, Star Frontiers, Gamma World, Metamorphasis Alpha - off the top of my head.
 
 
Sure.  We also read a lot of magazines with their suggested rules fixes and expansions.  Space Gamer, Different Worlds, White Dwarf and, of course, Dragon.  The demand for variants and expansions was  there right from the start.
 
 
I'd say the biggest issue was awareness.  We  had people then who would never play, and we have them now.  But now, RPGs are more familiar to more people.
 
 
We're older too, which often means "less time". We also, as we aged, added "more money to invest" to "less time to invest".  Now, I have the bucks to buy a honking big Adventure Path (that would have been what, 18 or so modules in the 1980s?), and no time to design adventures.  Then, I had lots of time and little cash.
 
But those early "more rules" books like Unearthed Arcana and Champions II and III sold pretty well.  The demand was there.  It was less known, but as it built, game developers and companies started producing fewer games, but with more support.
 

From experience as a GM I can tell you that its an awful, crashing feeling in your soul to begin to set up what you think people will like and excites you... then have someone make a snide comment because they figure that stuff all sucks.
 
Like going into a beautiful description of landscapes or architecture to try to paint the setting and someone interrupts "whatever, dood when do I roll to hit?" or a smart phone pings with a text that the phone zombie instantly grabs to attend to.

Area of Effect, Selective Target

I wonder what Australian history looks like prior to the arrival of Europeans.
 
 
We could compromise.  Keep the 48 pages in the sourcebook, but title it "Chapter VII:  Blah, blah, blah, politics".  If you want that in your game, read it.  If not, chapter VIII, "Blah, blah, blah, meteorology" awaits!

I wonder what Australian history looks like prior to the arrival of Europeans.
 
 
We could compromise.  Keep the 48 pages in the sourcebook, but title it "Chapter VII:  Blah, blah, blah, politics".  If you want that in your game, read it.  If not, chapter VIII, "Blah, blah, blah, meteorology" awaits!

Funny...the big complaint about 6e was its continuation of the trend of depth of coverage of corner cases, interactions, etc., repetition of issues in different places and beating issues to death with clarifications, causing the books to bloat outwards until finally reaching 2 volumes.
 
The complaints in CC are that it doesn't cover my favorite corner case, doesn't reprint things where I would like to see them and doesn't clarify my pet issue.
 
MORAL:  if you try to make everyone happy, nobody likes it.

I wonder what Australian history looks like prior to the arrival of Europeans.
 
 
We could compromise.  Keep the 48 pages in the sourcebook, but title it "Chapter VII:  Blah, blah, blah, politics".  If you want that in your game, read it.  If not, chapter VIII, "Blah, blah, blah, meteorology" awaits!

Funny...the big complaint about 6e was its continuation of the trend of depth of coverage of corner cases, interactions, etc., repetition of issues in different places and beating issues to death with clarifications, causing the books to bloat outwards until finally reaching 2 volumes.
 
The complaints in CC are that it doesn't cover my favorite corner case, doesn't reprint things where I would like to see them and doesn't clarify my pet issue.
 
MORAL:  if you try to make everyone happy, nobody likes it.

Funny...the big complaint about 6e was its continuation of the trend of depth of coverage of corner cases, interactions, etc., repetition of issues in different places and beating issues to death with clarifications, causing the books to bloat outwards until finally reaching 2 volumes.
 
The complaints in CC are that it doesn't cover my favorite corner case, doesn't reprint things where I would like to see them and doesn't clarify my pet issue.
 
MORAL:  if you try to make everyone happy, nobody likes it.

In a web serial I've been reading, there's a running joke that in game sessions, someone will inevitably stop the GM in mid-description with "Blah blah blah, politics."  It would seem to me that one could write that in one's world notes and save a lot of typing.  😂😂😂

Precisely.  Ideally, this is the thrust of the adventure; this is why the characters are here: they are taking part in th e change, and their actions will affect the resolution of that change.
 
 
 
This is another source of adventure: peaceful doesn't mean without strife, or without conflict completely.  Highway men, thieves, con artists, cattle rustlers, organized crime- these all exist even,in times of peace.  There are social ills as well: prior to the Civil War, the slave states in the South were remarkably peaceful.  That doesn't mean there wasnt a serious wrong that needed righting.
 
 
 
Precisely:  Player-class characters assisit them with their overwhelming problems, stumble into something resembling a larger plot, and the game is underway.
 
 
 
Getting back to generations of history built into a world book and why it just doesn't matter:
 
Millions- billions, hundreds od billions, maybe- of people throughout history has known and understood history and knew it all the way back to Creation-   some said their God did it; others said _their_ God did it; others still said it was the work of a pantheon.   Some said it was all spontaneous: put enough dry corn in enough flannel shirts in enough hayfields, and mice will spontaneously burst into existence.  Others will tell you that it doesn't matter if a pond is manmade: leave it to sit long enough, and it "just naturally" have fish in it.  A host of other folks will tell you that everything that ever would exist in all the universe was pressed  tightly in it own unique singularity until the compression got so incredibly powerful that it threw up and the universe was born.
 
This goes on with shorter spans of history, too.  According to the textbooks, North Korea's last leader birthed himself from a grizzly bear or some such nonsense.  I think the current one walked out od the mountains as an infant or something equally ridiculous.
 
Paul Bunyan single-handedly created every famous feature of the American landscape, and Cher thinks Mount Rushmore is a natural phenomenon.
 
The simple fact is, no matter which person or group got it right, that means that the majority of the himans ever to exist had absolutely no clue what the history of their world really was.  In some cultures, they still don't.  I may be wrong, but I am betting a number of indeginous Amazonian tribes are basing most of their universe on $hi7 their great-great grandparents totally made up, and Google Earth has yet to reveal any significant telescopes on the Sentinel Islands.
 
_All_ of these people share a common history, at least to a point, and damned few of them know the actual "correct" one, and even the most scientific one is still being filled in even today.
 
Yet none of this has in way affected their adventures in any way.  The Sentinelese know only "outlanders bring death," so they defend themselves by delivering it themselves.  How many slaves in the American South do you suppose were taught any sort of in-depth history?  Of what culture?  Of what continent?  Realistically, they were likely taught by ther elders "we are slaves and if we act this way or that, our lives are a tiny bit less awful," and a few stories of past events to help reinforce those lessons.
 
But it didnt stop them from fighting as hard as they could when given the chance- some for freedom; some for the status who (I cant imagine why, but I wasnt there).  Others risked everything to run away for freedom, and others helped hunt them down.
 
They had adventures (no; I am,not romanticising a horrible situation, but "they voluntarily went up against great odds in the face of horrible and mortal danger for a sliver of a chance to change their lot in life or that of someone else" is absolutely nothing if it isnt an adventure.
 
The Crusades- or, as I tend to think of that period: yet another reason I dont suffer from any sort of "white pride"- were adventures almost identical to many a D and D game.
 
The river Brioq (which probably means "river" in the local tongue) was created when the continental shelf of this land lifted the neighboring landmass, a collision that raised a seven-thousand mile long mountain range nearly two months hard rising from this point, and brought from the crust of the land a massive subterainean glacier, exposing it to the sun foe the first time almost a million years.
 
The run off from these mountains filled what was once dry arid plains at their base, creating the inland sea around which seven city states have wasted and waged a quiet struggle of political and economic leverage.  Unbeknownst To any of the folks living in that land, the center of the inland sea lies over the caldera of a massive volcano, and the sandstone crust that seals it will, in seven hundred years, give way, draining sea and drying this river.  The icy water pouring onto the hot mantle below will create an explosion that will wipe life from this entire half of the continent.
 
Today, though, the Brioq gives way to hundreds of marshes and swaps along its path to this point, where the rocky granite lands create multiole series of rapids and broad slow shoals before meandering down the the fishing villages above the largest delta in this hemisphere.  Evaporation from this delta keeps the humidty high, but the cool coastal breezes in the delta (about dive hundred mikes south of you) condense the moisture, and even in the warmest seasons--
 
Dammit, Tommy; they are chasing us!  Do we see a way across or not?  Is it wide?  Is it slow enough foe the horses?  Will they freeze?  Hurry up, Tommy!   As soon as we clear the county, we need to head east to the seaport.  Is ther any cover, in case we have to make a stand?
 
And That, Sir, is _all_ the crap your Players will give a out the history of the Brioq River valley, its ecosystem, and its impact on trade and development during the last two centuries.
 
I absolutely gaurantee it.
 
Like I said: I enjoy a lot of it myself, as do others.  But when one sets out To write such a detqiled sourcebbok, one needs to understand that he is writing it for _himself_, for no one else will enjoy it as much as he does, even if it is delightful, and he shoukd approach the project knowing full well that what he is doing is unnecessary and for the most part, completely wasted.
 

Sure, I see your point but it could be read as if the modifier (+1/4) makes it constant. What makes matter worse is that it mentions right after "If a Damage Shield involves a Ranged power, it must take the No Range (-½) Limitation. A Damage Shield moves with the character as he moves; this doesn’t require the Mobile Advantage.". It's explicit, you need to add No Range, it's explicit it does not require Mobile but it's silent about Constant. It's not an error but it's unclear. 
 
For Growth, I understand why it was done that way. I just don't like it 🙂 Note that it's potentially the only decision I don't like about CC so it's not a train smash!

Well, but if the power was not already Constant, and you didn't add Constant (+½), then it wouldn't be "A Constant Area Of Effect (Surface) power that a character applies to himself..."
 
 
Yeah, this one is a matter of logistics. One of the ways I saved space was to refer to things instead of repeating them. When you're trying to cram HERO System Sixth Edition and some superhero genre material all into 240 pages, there just ain't room for repeating stuff...  😆🤷‍♂️

Use a partially limited power.   Basically you apply an extra limitation to part of a power.  In this case it would apply to the adder for regenerates from death.    
 
So buy the regeneration at the level you want like normal.  Then add on the regenerate from death and apply the extra time limitation to only that part of the regeneration.

We can rephrase that a bit.
 
Some years back, I saw a good definition from D&D.  An encounter is anything where success or failure has consequences.  That's a great definition that's completely system-agnostic.  And it leads to the rephrase:  when you're not in an encounter, VERY FEW limitations are actually meaningful for PCs;  for the bad guys, they become plot devices quite often.  
 
And note that an encounter doesn't necessarily imply you're running on phases, or at least not explicitly on phases.  A B&E to search an office and hack the computers there for information isn't on phases as far as the PCs know...but failing carries various risks.  

Agreed.  Many limitations become far less limiting when all they mean is "only out of combat".  10x END?  Who cares if you can just recover after.  Activate 8-?  So what? You can just keep trying.  Even if you need to roll a 3, that's 1 chance in 216.  For a 2 SPD character, that's less than half an hour, on average, to roll a 3.  [2 phases per turn x 5 turns per minute = 10 so 600 tries an hour]  Extra time, 5 minutes?  Meaningless when you have all day.
 
If the resurrection means "he'll be back in time for the next significant scene", nailing down the phase by phase process isn't needed.
 
If, however, we envision recovery from death so rapid that they may be up and running in a turn, these questions become vastly more important.
 
Why do I keep seeing a Steve Long Rules Q answer of "if the GM is going to allow in-combat resurrection, the GM will need to figure out detailed rules for that."