Wanderer

Re: Superhumans pulling an Authority If you don't fancy the term Iron Age, just substitute it with "absolutely not four-color". Terms to describe post-80's comic books settings and moods are fuzzy anyway. Iron Age doesn't fit the scenario perfectly, besides: while some elements are there (realistic or "somewhat darker than real" societal conditions, plots, and stories, greater combat violence and lethality, attention to realistic consequences of superpowers, conflict with the law, vigilante mentality, exploration of the concept of "hero", concentration on society's ills), others definitely do not (amorality, lesser power levels than Silver/Bronze Age). It is just a handy label to give a quick general idea about the setting, such as Golden/Silver Age. Iron Age may not be completely realistic, but surely is, and ever was, definitely much more so than the Silver one (except maybe in the wet dreams of hard-core conservatives).

Re: Superhumans pulling an Authority >>6. How many other active paranormals/posthumans exist, and how powerful are they? You have to decide whether or not any rival top tier teams exist, and if they have philosophical differences with the PCs. Even if no other top tier teams exist, are there comparably powerful individual supers who might come into conflict with the PCs? Are there dozens, hundreds, or thousands of superhumans? For cosmic-level PCs to have emerged, there would likely have to be at least several hundred superhumans around the world. That's a pretty large pool of potential allies and enemies. Some of them may be persuaded willingly, some may measure the PCs by their actions/results, and some may be diametrically opposed, no matter what.>> By all means a sizable superhuman population should exist, at least numbering in the hundreds, if not thousands. It is necessary, to give PCs a decent pool of true peers (to reflect on the characters’ actions), worthy opponents (to ensure that mandatory component of the story, combat, keeps some decent thrill, and is not limited to the PCs smashing tank division after tank division), and potential allies and enemies. Since truly cosmic-level beings have emerged, it might be more likely that at least some thousands of supers exist: for a pinnacle to stand, generally a sizable base should be present. To justify the generally grim state of the world, it may be assumed that the emergence of superhumans is a fairly recent phenomenon, a handful of years at most, and that the PCs are among the first supers to achieve cosmic-levels of power, and/or to decide to work outside the system for general betterment’s sake, instead of selfish self-aggrandizement (like classical super-villains), or selling out to the system (like super-agents). Alternatively, it might be assumed that whatever force is creating supers, is keeping their numbers fairly low (in the hundreds), but their average level of power is rather high, or very high. BTW, since the setting is rather grim, it might be best to limit potential origins to the less cheesy types, and keep them fairly unified, an handful at most: mutations (maybe allowing supers the unconscious ability to alter reality), magic (especially if it is more of the modern syncretist “chaos†variety, and strict resemblance to occult traditions is downplayed), genetic manipulation, and broadly-interpreted psychic powers all would work fine, but outlandish “radiation accidentsâ€, divine beings, super-athletes, martial artists, weaponmasters, and the like would probably be inappropriate. Super-derived hyper-tech may be a good origin, as long as a realistic explanation is given why it ihas not spread out to reshape society (e.g. it is so complex that only super-smart paranormals can truly understand it, at present). Alien and/or extra-dimensional heritage may or may not be appropriate, but it is probably best if the presence of alien races and alternate dimensions is downplayed in the setting, as it is going to focus on Earth’s problems. Real divine beings (especially ethically polarized ones such as angels/demons) are very likely inappropriate for this kind of setting. It works best in a transhuman perspective, where the only godlike figures, if any, are evolved super-humans, or very distant, incomprehensible alien beings. No definite external frame of reference should exist for PCs' morality, beyond individual conscience. It would be an appropriate, ironic twist if prolific cults existed, worshipping very powerful supers. Ideally, the power level of other supers in the setting should be set so that very, very large assembles of other supers may represent a definite threat to the PCs, but not ensure their certain downfall. Likewise, even if it is assumed that the PCs are definitely among the most powerful superbeings in the world, if not the most powerful ever, it might be interesting to assume that another team of supers with a similar (maybe slightly lower, so that their team-up with lower supers does not ensure the PCs’ downfall) power level, to provide a recurring opponent in the campaign. Recurring enemy or rival NPCs should likely oppose the group out of idealistic, selfless dedication to the status quo, (misguided) honor bond or duty to authority figures, avoid using lethal force against the group, or have other recognizably “good†motivations, which characters may reluctantly respect, as truly villainous enemies are bound to be slaughtered by characters first time they lose a battle, unless they have very good means to survive or escape it (e.g. using robot doubles, teleporting away at the last minute, resurrection plot devices, using proxies). It may be that characters are somewhat more hesitant in using lethal force against fellow super, both because, at the cosmic level, they feel more of a gut empathy bond with superhumans than common normals, and because they may see supers’ lives as inherently more precious (the same way the life of a great scientist, scholar or artist, or of young, healthy people is deemed more precious than the one of mentally-disadvantaged, old or severely ill people). >>7. What sort of governmental and extra-governmental superagencies exist? What is their level of capability? For example, if there's a Stronghold-type facility, would it actually be capable of holding a PC? As you say, hordes of elite super-agents would likely be necessary to pose any sort of challenge for cosmic-level PCs.>> Some kind of super-agency, set up to deal with emerging supers, either by major powers’ governments, or through international organizations, is likely to exist, and to have access to both some degree of super-tech, and some supers in its ranks and payroll. Like any government organization in the setting, its controlling authorities and a sizable part of its rank and file are likely to be corrupt, selfishly power-grabbing, or upholding the status quo out of blind obedience, shortsightedness, or willful ignorance. Other members, however, might oppose characters out of (misguided) idealism, sense of honor or selfless dedication to duty, and/or restrain to use non-lethal force against the characters. The characters would likely try to spare, and avoid unnecessary damage, the latter, at least the first time. The self-serving, blindly-obedient, and willful ignorant would be fought without qualms, if appropriate with lethal force, and the truly corrupted ones would be terminated with extreme prejudice, just like their peers in other sectors of society. Their level of capability of non-super agents is going to be the same of very low-powered supers, likely provided by advanced tech. Huge numbers of such agents would be necessary to cause a significant bother for characters, unless they’d be working with true supers. A Stronghold-type facility may or may not exist, but it is not really likely to be able to hold cosmic-level characters as ordinary prison inmates: they might be possibly dealt with exceptional, stopgap measures, such as “hot sleep†suspended-animation techniques, exile to different dimensions, deep mental reconditioning, all bound to ultimately fail. The only really effective way to deal with a rogue cosmic-level superhuman would be to persuade him to change its ways, or kill him (and ensure it does not resurrect). >>8. What sort of special exotic hardware is available to the top world military powers? In a world of superhumans, would the military have deployed anti-super weapons and tactics? It may not be nearly as easy as it would be in a RW setting, if supers have been around for a few procurement/R&D cycles.>> Major governments might have limited access to some kind of super-tech weapons, mainly through the efforts of genius paranormals in their employ, but it would be mainly restricted to the government super-agencies established to deal with paranormals, and ordinary armed forces would have access to the same . or just slightly improved, degree of weapons they have in RW. >>9. Master Villains--both with a small m and a big M. How many MVs exist, and is/are there MVs capable of posing a threat to the entire team? Would any of them ally with each other if the PCs started offing villains? A mastermind or puppeteer type could well manipulate events behind the scenes to either undermine the PCs efforts, or get them to remove obstacles to the villain's own goals.>> Some MVs, (anything from an handful to a score) may exist in the setting, to provide truly “bad†opposition to the PCs, that does not come from society’s evils and corrupt authorities. They’d likely be rogue very high-powered superhumans, superscientist tech geniuses, and super-magicians. Generally they should be of comparable power to the PCs, so that they may pose a genuine threat to them, especially by accurate planning, clever use of characters’ weaknesses, a team-up among themselves, and similar tactics. Probably they would have personal powers similar to individual PCs (since we are assuming they are among the most powerful supers ever), and make up the difference though liberal use of elite minions, superagents, and super-tech. Both truly evil ones should exist (but they would need some good way of escaping the PC’s wrath, or they might not survive their first defeat), and for an ironic twist, ones that have an idealistic agenda similar to the PC’s one, just somewhat more ruthless. The latter type are more fit to become recurring NPCs. Super-villain alliances are very likely to develop in the wake of the PC’s crusade. It would have the ironic effect of making villains more effective, which may alienate the characters… or move them to redouble efforts. Really clever MVs might succeed in manipulating PCs into fulfilling their own goals, or undermining their efforts (maybe by compromising the PC’s information source to cause them harm innocents). This might cause PCs to question their crusade, at least for a while, or plunge into it with renewed dedication.

Re: Superhumans pulling an Authority Having got some tiny slice of free time, I’ll try to address at least some of the very clever and interesting points that Megaplayboy issued: The first bunch of points: >>. 1. Concrete details--how many points, active points, damage classes, etc for the PCs? It sounds like there will be 5 characters. If the characters are built on a really high point base, like Dr. Destroyer 5E(2500 points), then they're going to walk over any and all terrestrial opposition without much difficulty--just too powerful to have a chance of stopping. If they're built on the minimal 'cosmic' level of 700-750 points, they probably won't be capable of multitasking while facing down their toughest foes. So somewhere in between is probably the "sweet spot". 1000-1500 points or so is probably ideal, and 100-150 active points or so.>> Well, I’d say that such a campaign would be fit for 5-12 characters or so, so the power level would be slightly dependent on the group size. That said, some basic assumptions can be defined: the characters are going to be on a similar level as the most powerful “cosmic†superhumans comic-book types: Superman, Green Lantern, Thor, Silver Surfer, Firelord, Dr. Strange, Phoenix, Apollo, Doctor, the Engineer. On a more abstract level, each of them should be able to shrug off any conventional attack except maybe a major nuclear strike (note that rules tweaks will be likely used to insure that supers are much more invulnerable to “real weapons†damage than they are to attacks from other supers), fighting, with a fair chance of winning, coordinated assaults from very large teams of lower-powered supers, crush cities or large parts of a major power’s armed forces in a time taking up at maximum a few hours to a few days. At least a sizable minority of the team should be able to perform massive large-scale “miraculous†alterations or rearranging of the environment, like mass healings, moving up or transforming large parts of the landscape, weather re-arranging, creating very large amounts of matter and the like. How much points would this require in Hero terms?? IMHO, it would require from 1600-1800 (for the combat specialists) to 1800-2000 (for the miracle-dealers). This is a very rough estimate, though, and it depends on how efficiently points are used. I would assume very liberal use of things like Variable Advantage and Power Frameworks, though. A 120-150 active points limit would be probably fine. Some powers, like Total Life Support, Immortality, Healing/Regeneration and enough Attack Powers and/or Resistant Defenses to fit the general character concept, would be expected for all characters, barring total and complete contrast with individual character concepts. So would do enough Movement powers to move around the Earth in a few hours at most. >>2. What kind of mix of powers for the characters will there be? Obviously they'd need a super-brick, a mega-powerful energy projector, a superscientist tech genius, a magician, and maybe a mentalist or matter transmuter. Also, one of them should probably be a master tactician, another a charismatic speaker, at least one filthy rich, and one with a lot of connections. If they're too similar(built to be completely self-sufficient), it's harder to challenge them, and players sometimes resent someone stomping all over their shtick.>> At this level of power, typical character archetypes perforce begin to mix and blur, and strict enforcement of clichés is annoying anyway, so the main difference should be between the types with “personal†or “combat†powers and the ones with “miracle-dealing†powers. The former are the ones whose powers, while being amazing in combat, are not immediately useful for making creative large-scale alterations of the environment. Except to destroy: damaging is always easier and quicker that creating. Typically some combination of brick, energy projector, psychokinetic mentalist, and maybe speedster. Clever thinking may still envision good ways of using powers to creative ends, beside combat, but it’s not an automatic thing. The latter are the ones whose powers are good for causing large-scale alterations to the world, beside smashing and blasting: summoning, moving up and transforming huge amounts of stuff, altering weather patterns, mass healings, and the like. Good character concepts would be super-magicians, very powerful psychokinetics, nano-tech matter-transmuters. I’d say that at least 1/3 of the group should be of the “miracle-dealer†type. These guys should still fit the basic “combat prowess†requirements of the general concept. It’s harder to change the world for the better if you can only efficiently destroy. Similarly, some characters (at least a couple, to allow group splitting and backup) should probably be super-smart scientific and tactical geniuses, to conceive and propose to the public innovative, environmental-friendly, solutions to problems like energy and food, and organize their world-changing campaign. IMO assuming all characters are filthy rich by default would be the simplest way: either they got it from personal resources, or as being part of a close-knit team with guys who can create gold and diamonds in large amounts. At these levels of power, the characters’ array of powers is bound to show some basic similarities, especially as regards Attack, Defense and Movement Powers. It is assumed all characters fit some basic but very high-powered “competency†and “combat prowess†guidelines, and cosmic-level powers do begin to blur in each other, beyond special effects: the cosmic energy/matter manipulator is not so different from the super-mage in abilities, just like the divine scion and the stellar-powered marvel. For cosmic supers, personality (foremost), background, and special effects are much more important to differentiate characters than power specialization, archetype and team niche. Besides, at cosmic level some archetypes just become a minor facet of a character’ array of powers, like metamorph (“yeah, you can take the shape of absolutely anything. Cool. How are you going to spend the other 1400 points?â€) or weaponmaster, and others become the special effect, like martial artist (a 1500-point martial artist is just a brick/energy projector with a Chi special effect). Having a cool, off-world Operations Center-like Base, typically on the moon, in a Lagrangian point, on in Earth’s orbit, might be appropriate, or at least in an exotic, isolated locale, such as the deep wilderness, underwater, airborne, or underground, might be useful, would help keeping down the civilian carnage from the unavoidable battles with the military, enemy super-teams, hordes of government super-agents or MV minions later in the campaign. In that case, raise the numbers above by the Base’s cost. >>3. What kind of personalities do the PCs have? Are they all of exactly the same mindset? Would they have different motivations for coming to their common goal? Is one an alien, a robot, or otherwise possessed of a radically different perspective? Are they all from the same or different national backgrounds?>> Character’s personality and background would be in the player’s choice. It would be just necessary to disallow the ones that would directly conflict with the basic campaign premise, which includes characters doing what they feel necessary, heedless of laws, and the possibility of a military confrontation with the rest of the world: deeply law-abiding types and total pacifists would be in all likelihood unfit for such a campaign, so I’d bar Psych Lim like Respectful of Authority, Total CvK, Law-Abiding, and the like. Superman has simply no place here, except as an opponent. Besides, since it’s going to take a lot of motivation and dedication to take on a campaign to completely change the world, I’d expect all characters to sport a Psych Lim or two reflecting such a dedication: stuff like Feels He Must Make the World a Better Place, Must Save Humanity from Itself, Must Protect the Environment, a modified code of the Chinese Knight-Errant Code, Vigilante Mentality, and the like. It would be interesting to take some personality trait, that would put some potential restraint to the godlike characters’ behavior in their crusade, and allow for some interesting psychological conflicts between their dedication to their objective, and the reluctance to cross some basic moral boundary: e.g. Honorable, Must Not Harm Innocents, Cannot Kill in Cold Blood, Respect Good People, Must Accept Challenges from Worthy Opponents, and the like. Some interesting inter-group conflict might be created if some characters would sport some Psych Lims that would make them more prone to rash actions than the others, like Enraged, Bad Temper, Impulsive, Aggressive or Ruthless in Combat, Vengeful, and the others having stuff like Dislikes Unnecessary Violence, Through Planner, Perfectionist, and the like. At this level of power, Overconfidence is going to be very, very common. Besides, half the campaign’s fun is likely going to come from the conflict between ends and means, so I’d probably disallow classic “villainous†Psych Lims that would make too easy to accomplish characters’ goals though widespread atrocities, like Causal Killer, Amoral, and the like. All the characters should be very, very loyal to each other, though. Personality conflict may develop with time, but as they are going to face the pressure of the whole world very soon, this is necessary to prevent the group from collapsing too soon. >>4. What kind of disads do the PCs have? Psych lims? DNPCs? Hunteds(well, they're likely to be hunted by Do any of them have vulnerabilities, physical lims, susceptibilities, unluck, or anything that would actually be a liability in combat(on a side note, will any of them have any power limitations on their abilities)? This will basically guide the GM in figuring out how to enhance challenges for the PCs.>> See above. Probably, a lot of Psych Lims. In all likelihood, 200-300 Disadvantages would be appropriate, and 150-200 coming from any single category. Characters in time are going to have Hunteds from pretty much any major supra-national law-enforcing organization, the governments of major powers, major law-abiding super-teams, and master villains bent on world conquest, so taking any of them as character creation would be appropriate. Likewise for taking Reputations like ruthless vigilante, eco-terrorist, and similar. Vulnerabilities, Susceptibilities, Unluck, some power limitations (especially Variable Lim, and ones like Concentration, Activation Roll, Gestures, Incantation, Increased Endurance, Visible) would all be excellent potential means to give some challenge to the godlike characters. Likewise, some power-fuelling Dependence from very common/easy to obtain substances, like sunlight, or not being underground (stellar emissions) or periodic meditation, might be appropriate. But the campaign is likely going too lethal for more exotic forms. Taking a DNPC would be a major issue for the campaign, probably to be agreed with the GM: on one hand, it would give some “common man†perspective to contrast with the transhuman and radical activist mindset of the PCs. OTOH, it may be possible that the campaign would be just too lethal and high-powered for allowing them decent chances of survival: governments, Master Villains, etc. are going pull all stops to finding any way to restrain the PCs, by blackmailing them with their loved ones’ safety, using them as booby traps, etc. OTOH, if the PCs evacuate them to their cool off-world base, are DNPC still going to be their points’ worth? Classical Phys Lims disabilities, would be likely inappropriate for the “better than human†general character concept, but some exotic ones, that reflect the most bizarre aspects of their powers, like Bizarre Biochemistry, and Weirdness Magnet, might be appropriate. So would be exotic Distinctive Features, like Mystic Aura, Energy Signature, Glowing, Strangely-Colored Skin, Visible Aura, Bulging Muscles, Unearthly Beauty, Disturbing Voice, and the like. Depending on character concept, characters either have a very, very secure Secret Identity (as any major intelligence organization will be after it very soon), which would make interesting to have Accidental Change, and/or exotic Distinctive Features, or they are going to have a Public Identity very soon, so why not pick it up at creation? Having a Rivalry with other supers with opposing goals, or sharing a similar agenda, but disagreeing about the means, would be a useful plot hook. Age would be inappropriate: all characters are going to be Immortal. >>5. What's the general outlook of the campaign setting? Is it totally bleak, or are there good people doing their best in a bad system? Are all superagents and superpatriots corrupt and complicit, or are some of them merely "misinformed and misguided"? Is the public really that stupid, selfish, and cynical, or are there actually a lot of people who are paying attention and trying to change things>> Very definitely Iron Age, and Shades Of Grey. The vast majority of authority figures are definitely selfish and corrupt, or at the very least misguided by their prejudices and much more interested in preserving their positions and privileges than the common good. The system as a whole is inefficient and corrupt: some good people exist in it, here and there, doing their best, but generally lack the power to make a real difference on the large scale. Others are misguided or honor-bound to heed the corrupt authorities, or honestly feel that the system is the “lesser evil†choice. Corporations are always looking to cutting any possible corner, up to genuine atrocities, heedless of negative consequences, for the bottom line, and must be forced kicking and screaming to heed the general good, if a potential for even more profit exists. As an average, the majority of general public is too apathetic, misguided and duped by the system and the corrupt media, and burdened by a huge lot of stupid, short-sighted, selfish and cynical people, to make any difference for the better, and all too often takes the worst decision. A sizable number of good people that pay attention and try to change things, does exist, but they are too few, and lack the influence, to make any large-scale difference in the face of the system’s and the majority’s flaws and faults. Crime is rampant, social injustices and the wrongs caused or tolerated by the system are disgusting, and escalating environmental damage appears bound to completely ruin the planet’s biosphere and make the planet unfit for human life in a few generations, but authorities and the majority of the public are too shortsighted, corrupt, and cynical to really make something about it. Not too different from RW, in other words... The characters' morality or villainous lack of it in utterly disregarding laws, setting themselves as judge, jury (and, if necessary, executioner; the degree of civilian suffering may surely be an issue in the campaign, but it is assumed that characters will not have any qualms in using lethal force on "evil" people or in combat situations; definition of "evil" people may vary, but will never include "innocent civilians that oppose them by peaceful means"; e.g. a CEO that orders actions resulting in severe environmental damage is not innocent by any stripe), opposing authorities, democratically-elected or not, and otherwise setting themselves outside the law and above human justice, per se, is not regarded as an interesting issue, and will therefore taken for granted. It is assumed they had sufficient motivation for their choice, and are sufficiently secure in it, that they are not likely to have changes of heart, barring truly massive changes to the setting, either caused by their actions or otherwise. If necessary, the scenario will be altered to ensure that this condition remains true. Therefore it is a really annoying waste of bandwidh to lecture the thread starter about it. It is a basic, unchanging assumption of the scenario. If you feel this makes the character villains, terrorists, sociopaths, or the like, feel free. The scenario stands unchanged. If the very idea is abhorrent to you, and feel the urge to preach about it, please ignore the thread. OTOH, a major issue of the scenario will be the congruity of the characters' goals with the means, the consequences of their actions, and their overall degree of success in making the world a better place: are they truly making a difference for the better? Is the suffering they are creating balanced by a greater amount of good? Are they succumbing to the same corruption they started off to fight? Are their actions still bound by basic morality, decence, honor??

Re: Superhumans pulling an Authority

Even TIA I'm running this discussion on two threads, I'm pretty much sure I've already answered this point here a couple of times. Sigh. One more time. I do not wish takeover as a sure, garanteed conclusion. A possible outcome. Just how probable would it be for a high-powered supergroup like JLA or Avengers or Authority to accomplish the same result?? Here, I'm aiming for the same degree of likelihood. Probably since the discussion (to my chagrin) ended up ranting on the political correctness of ousting democracies, it may have looked like as foregone conclusion. *Frustration* Maybe if I were to start this thread anew, I would describe it as " we want to play a bunch of cosmic-powered nasty supervillain bastards that mean to wage war on and take over the world, but in a realistic setting, and with a decent chance of actually winning. They mean to get Joe T. Public licking their boots, £$%& his woman, and roast his dog. Please elaborate strategies, problems, scenarios, and possible outcomes". So all you patriots would feel morally secure, and we could still have an interesting and entertaining technical discussion.

Excellent ideas. I stand in wait of your resume. Do keep it technical, though please. Well, the main group taking over is not meant to be a sure thing, so addressing this kind of opposition would be one of main issues to face. Perhaps a low combat campaign ripe with great roleplaying opportunities - the Captain America clone's slow realization that the takeover was one thing, but to hold on to power, he has to get his hands dirty, and is now longer the shining icon of the masses. In fact, now he's no better than his arch nemesis. Well, you could have a fiar amount of combat from superbeings opposiing the crusade, the hordes of superempowered or armed with super-technology government agents, conventional armed forces. AMF, a world-conquering story will likely include a lot of comabt. But yes, having to face the problem of the temptations of power, that would be a great RP issue. Not the Captain concept, though. I don't see him stepping in the kind of anti-establishment stance that would necessary. That's another good idea. Excellent for great RP opportunities, if PCs on opposing sides have ties (friends, family, lovers, ex-collegues, etc.). It requires PC vs. PC conflict (and combat), which is always a delicate thing. excellent idea. Good for creating the right team spirit. The prayer hour to the group is strictly optional for the staff and civil servants, though What about doing a little of both?? Some become an hotbed of conflicts with the cover of the dictator is removed, forcing PCs to get their hands dirty in thankless peacekeeping, having to choose sides, or be mired in enforcing unwanted peace, in some others society is sufficiently cohese ot apathetic to allow a peaceful transition. Hitting too mch dicataros at once, would lead to overstretching. Characters would need a kind of orgnized schedule, something like "This season we focus on the campaign to overthrow North Korea's regime, rooting out WMD and bringing in famine relief, then once the UN's peacekeeping force steps in and accords for reunification with South Korea are signed, we move on to Zimbabwe and Palestinians suicide bombers..." or risk being overwhelmed. Mostly true, but wouldn't risk of anarchy be potwntially countered by the group telling the populace in the same TV address to behave. After all, they are obviously the new bosses, and just showed how dangerous if crossed they are. Again, why not a little bit of both? Some clear success in some areas, to motivate characters, and unexpected problems springing out in others, to show that idealism is all well and good, but ideals don't get food distributed, basic services provided, or public order kept.

From where it comes the right to civil disobedience? Resisting to unjust laws? Sabotaging the equipment of environmentally-damaging operations? Hiding a fugitive slave or political dissident from the police? Helping a woman to abort when it's forbidden? From where people get the moral conviction to oppose laws they honestly deem unjust? Is morally justified to label any resistance to laws as a crime, and if involving use of force, terrorism ? If the state sanctifies the use of lethal force in upholding such laws, am I a terrorist if I choose to replicate force with (proportionate) force? If the government is executing a person that is in probable evidence innocent, to appease public prejudice, am I not justified in saving that man, by any means available ? Where is the diffrence from saving someone from lynching? The rule of law? Auschwitz, the Gulag, the slave trade, were all built on duly-anctioned laws. How curious that in the original situation where this maxim is stated, it is about the duty to act to make a positive difference in the world, and how willfully ignoring evil (such as "crime is a problem of state-sanctioned cops, not mine")becomes active complicity, and personal tragedy. That said, certainly being able to envision how to use powers wisely and cleverly is a natural and necessary extension of the same moral mandate, but "the rule of law" or "the will of the majority" are NOT adequate blanket responses to the issue of direct moral responsibilities for everyone's actions, always, all the time.

Not too difficult at all. Let just crack open the reports of an human rights organization like Amnesty International and make a list of the worst offenders. I'd gauge that some names, like North Korea, Burma, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Zimbabwe, just to name a few, will be beyond much controversy. A sad but difficult to avoid side effect of willing a superhero game going ankle-deep in the morass of real world problems, instead of fluffying in the hypocrisies of the comic code and postmodern PC. One might try to translate the same quandaries into a mostly fictional context, so that the dictatorial hellhole is some kind of fictional Latveria, but I fear such approach would be too cheesy, and cheapen the emotional impact of the game. The problem with this approach, as much as I may respect it, is that it becomes difficulty distinguishable, in practice, from the four-color approach I so much loathe. In a case scenario like Tien An Men, e.g., would your Common People superbeing step in and stop the student-butchering tanks, or since it is better to let common people to solve their own problems on their terms, etc. would was his hands of the situation ? As much as I try, I can't but see the latter choice as hypocrisy of the worst kind. A fine idea, but as you point out, one requiring both players and a GM of excellent skill, patience and maturity. For one, this sceanrio would necessarily includefrequent player vs. player battles... And to briefly return to the "overthrowing dictatorships" thing: what if there a civil war going on in a particular country? Enforcing a peacekeeping side on both sides? Who do you support? The side that appears to be the greater good (more freedom, happiness, and prosperity if they win), or else, as above What criteria do you use to make that decision? What information do you use? Who do you believe? Being duped into helping the wrong side. Certainly a real risk for any crusading hero, and a source for excellent plot hooks and moral dilemmas (especially if Pcs are the honorab le types, that dislike not keeping their word).

Yeah, the soul-searching and anguishing about not becoming what they are crusading against, using their own methods, the remorse about the unavoidable "collateral damage", sooner or later, the temptation about "cutting corners", the concoradance of aims and means, this would be very interesting angles to delve, and part of the themes I wish this story would explore. These are the moral questions that stand right at the core of any revolution. What I'd rahter prefer not to have around is the kind of righteous banner-waving moralizing about the duty of non-interferene, the sanctity of the rule of law, etc. that went around here, except maybe in the mouth of some NPC Captain America or Superman clone to be given a sound beating by the characters right in the middle of their sermon The idea is to portray the Authority-like struggle of the characters to make the world a better place by radical activism in the socio-political field, and under the pressure of events, turn it into a reluctant quest to take over. It is not meant to be sure outcome, only a possible and maybe likely one, if performed cleverly. Many people here gave actual ideas on how such a campaign would shape, the kind of IC opposition involved, and of this I'm deeply grateful. It is the direct righteous attacks on the philosophy of the campaign, the moralizing rants on the sanctity of the rule of law, the banner-clad sermons on how real men would bring the wolrd down in mass enlarged suicide-homicide rather than living under anything less than perfect democracy, and the not-so-thinly veiled personal attacks on the ideas of the thread starter that are very little pleasant, and even less useful, even if I might manage to recycle some of them as IC talk for the most obnoxious NPC Bah. Pathetic bunch of losers. They didn't even manage to discover that my real secret identity is Ralph Nader. :D:D

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here's a scenario Wanderer's "Heroes" can't win, no matter how powerfu That colonization stretched past its time, and was the excuse for economic spoilage, doesn't mean it accomplished some good works in the meantime. Let's talk about abolition of slavery, unliterate masses being given freer access to education (the same one that ultimately allowed those same masses the maturity and means to claim self-rule), better health care and wiping out endemic diseases, better control of famines, improving the legal and social position of women, and suppressing aborrent practices like cannibalism, footbinding of women, and mandatory "suicide" immolation of widows. The paragon doesn't faze me in the least. The "burden" of missionaries and soldiers accomplishing those results was a damn good thing.

It depends on what he is doing this for: is he self-immolating for an unjust cause? Then, as much as I can reluctantly respect his courage, and weep for a lost life, I claim the right not to be swayed by his sacrifice, and ignore it. Noble peopes have valiantly fought wars decided by their democratically-elected leaders to preserve the right of those countries to keep slavery or oppress or butcher their minorities. Does their courage make their cause right? Does their popular support make it unjust to quash their efforts by greater force? Isn't the world a better place because they lost, enven if their right to self-determination was quashed? So if our monk is self-immolating, if the characters are present, they may stop him, or not (it depends on their philosophies about suicide). If not, they will consider what he is doing this for. If it is to enforce a course of action they think is not the best for the world, they will ignore it. Sadly, there are situations where setting up that bulldog is the best thing to do. Ahh, but if you and your neighbor had pulled your asses together and got around to stop wars and eliminate pollution, then they wouldn't have needed to take on those issues on themselves, isn't it? And if you had stopped your democratically-elected leaders from using force to defend their right to arbitrarily pollute and war, then they wouldn't have needed to take over as well. Enjoy your welfare fund and please use some of your newly found free time to better yourself and make a positive contribution to he world, and make some hard reflection about why this whole situation was created and how to prevent it in the future. Make a better work as responsible citizen next time. You are on test, just as you have always been all the days of your life, just now stakes are clearer. One hint: taking advantage of your new position to rut and be apathetic, or stubbornly using more force to defend your right to repeat the wrongs of the past is not the right answer. Ahh, but the whole point of the scenario is that someone is given the means to make it, and the will to use them, and what happens as a consequence.

Just because it's scary, that doesn't make it wrong. Drug addicts are scary, punks are scary, yet that doesn't give the majority the right to oppress them. There are a glaring difference to starting to set up as absolute rulers from the beginning, and having to seize power because the majority definitely showed itself so shortsighted by unreasonable use of force that it gave you no other choice. Yet, it must always be assumed that common sense will return and people will rise above their passions, sooner or later, and so assume that one will be able to relinquish the reins of power sooner or later. Moreover, there is a definite difference between setting up a "I claim right of causal killing, all your women, and all your money" despotism, and say that for a couple years, a decade, or a generation all laws are subject to veto from a supervising unelected body.

You are right that kind of arbitrariness would turn them into despots. However, my point stands from turning the argument around. How much force is morally legitimate for the majority or the government to use, if ever, to enforce wicked laws. If the characters show up to free a prisoner that in probable evidence is innocent, and is being executed just to appease public opinion (and I challenge you to say this is not a plausible scenario), or lethal force is used to stop an ecotage situation that only damages situation, then it is justified to resist an uneasonable show of force with force, and put the escalator in conditions of not doing further harm. And if institutions keep escalating force, to the exclusion of proportionality or the moral rightness of the original purpose, then a point may be reached when even majority rule can be disqualified, and it may be morally legitimate to restict or limit it for a while.

Yeah, "Some" credit, not an unlimited amount. When evidence shows, now and again, that the majority cannot bother or muster the will to act or rise above its prejudices to do the right thing, then it is the individual's right to act and resist injustice or wicked laws, and if need be, goad the public kicking and screaming into doing the right thing (cfr. say John Brown). Undefinited compliance with injustice becomes complicity. The characters are just doing what any could do, and has the right to do, just their reach is magnified a thousandfold. A normal can spike a tree. A super can throw the whole lumbering operation in disarray. Just because a super has got its powers, its individual right to act to oppose injustice and wicked laws doesn't evaporate. Having super powers does not give a mandate of noniterference. Every individual has the right to choose whether he should exercise his right to civil disobedince and resistance, and supers are not different. Nor having powers strips away their individual insight into the problems of the world, or acting upon that insight.

Re: Re: Re: Here's a scenario Wanderer's "Heroes" can't win, no matter how powerful Ahm, in that post I had just slightly exaggerated the actual capabilities of the group, to illustrate a rethoric point. Neutralizing a massive nuclear strike, or any other global world-destroying instrument is not actually something even the group should be able to without breaking a sweat, just snapping their digits. They should apply their powers and skills to the outmost effort, run, and toil, but yes, it is assumed that with big effort, they would be able to stop Apocalypse. The main point however, remains: there are acts, like choosing global genocide, that would disqualify even a democracy from legitimate rule. There are acts that even majority rule cannot justify. What if the majority wanted to legalize mandatory castration or lobotomy for homosexuals? Wouldn't be morally legitimate to resist that government by all means available, including armed force? If one major power was willing to risk nuclear war rather than, say, give up the right to release ozone-damaging gases, wouldn't be right for other countries to invade that country, and temporarily limit that people's right to self-rule, un til it has given proof that it has been reeducated to less destructive conducts? After all, that what the international community has repeteadely done, cfr. Germany after World War II, and Kosovo. The individual's right to resist wicked laws is a fact. The propsed scenario magnifies the characters' ability to individually make a difference a thousand fold. There a glaring (and for the likes of me, intolerable) hypocrisy at the core of the superhero myth. Either the will of the majority has to be heeded absolutely, and then even intervening to bust a criminal, or stop a natural disaster isn't morally legitimate, because the specific agencies have the mandate to act in those situations, not private citizens. OR the individual has the right to act to enforce the common good, to the best of its abilities, and then there is no ethical justification in busting a drug-dealer and not busting a murderous dictator or stopping environmental spoilage or resisting wicked laws. I choose the latter, and moral coherence. How Superman can go to bed, and ignore the thought of all those dissidents in Burma or North Korea or Iran being oppressed or tortured, which he could have been easily saved, is utterly beyond me.

Obviously you are right calling for a limit on bashing conservatives. But Think this: the fact that nowadays the conservative politics agenda dominates politics and the ultra-capitalist thought is the canon in economics makes the evils, blunders and horrors of those schools of thought the most ones that leap to the eye, and the obvious ones a group of crusading idealists blessed with godlike powers would rail gainst first and foremost. Had this chronicle been planned a couple of decades ago, I would have likely sent our righteous heroes smashing down the Berlin Wall, destroying the Soviet military machine, freeing the downtrodden East European masses and saving the Tienanmen students from slaughter. And keeping into mind all those gung-ho superpatriots of freedom and democracy that would justify washing the planet in nuclear fire rather than democracies giving up, say, the God-given right of democracies to gas guzzlers or arbitrary-enforced death penalty or whaling, well that's just the kind of aberrant thought that I would use IC to justify enforcing a fascist regime on them. Never forget that Hitler and Khomeini went to power with a democratic vote. If you legitimate everything through the will of the majority, you legitimate Auschwitz and suicide bombers.

Re: Here's a scenario Wanderer's "Heroes" can't win, no matter how powerful The PCs, neutralizing the nuclear weapons arsenal with their powers: "So in your arrogance, some of you would have chosen death and destruction not only for yourselves, but for all those who want to live, your innocent and unborn children, all the lifeforms of this wonderful planet, who share the same right to live as yourselves. In your stubborness, you would choose the end of everything, rather than give up the "right" to massacre and oppress each other, to despoil your home, and make it unfit for the generations unborn. Don't you realize that is this willful ignorance and immaturity, this refusal to grow up and face your responsibilities, that forces our hand to intervene and treat you as infants? The more you keep acting like rabid beasts, the more you will need our guiding hand and feel it like a whip and a yoke. [sigh]We tire of this role. How long it will be that you realize the potential within yourselves ?" OOC: the canon telling of the conclusion of the Aberrant War was complete hogwash, a fabrication after the fact by the Aeon Foundation. Toward the end of the Aberrant War, theere were dozens, if not hundreds, of novas powerful enough to blast away or disable those nuclear arsenals with a thought. Divis Mal was powerful enough to create a new universe. He could have wiped out all nuclear weapons from Earth with a thought. Novas chose to leave Earth by their own will.

Superman moralizing: pleargh. Let's hear about some Millar, instead: Jack Hawksmoor, interrogating a just-deposed murderous dictator " He tells that killing him would be a useless and barbarous act, since he is just the puppet of a interests coalition: If something would happen to him, another would be chosen to keep on with the same policy" Apollo, dropping him in the middle of the kin of the peasants slain by the dictator's death squad: "well, whoever will take his place will think twice before ordering other mass slayings" ... JH: " We just do what any civil person would do, in our place. No sane person may criticize us for saving human lives. ... Engineer: "How can you expect we will save people from extra-terrestrial menaces, and look the other way when dictators from our planet perpetrate genocides" ... JH, addressing Clinton" You are not in the position to define our competences, Mr. President. Our main goal may be defending Earth, but this doesn't mean we'll tolerate human rights violations under our nose. We are not a comic-book supergroup that fights useless battles every month to keep the status quo. This must be a world that deserves being saved, for my colleagues and me keep risking our lives in the first line. Clinton" Mind your steps, Mr Hawksmoor" JH: "Frankly, we could say you the same, Mr. President" Mark Millar, The Authority, "The Nativity. One" These are REAL heroes.

Well, characters will be characters, with fully-developed personalities. Just as a necessary campagn premise, a common personality feature will be a radical activist mindset, and the willingness to defy the status quo. Just like the characters in my beloved main inspiration, the Authority: they have very different personalities, but they share dedication to their crusade as a common trait (and please just abstain from telling me at length just how much you hate Authority; you hate them probably less than I hate Superman). Besides, this, there are some assumptions of the campaign: characters have to have enough powers to single-handedly, or as a small group, alter the socio-economic-physical landscape to a huge degree, creating "miracolous" changes, and withstand with a very good likelihood of defeating, large swaths of the superpowers' armed forces.Plus, this would likely be a small (5-10 chars) group. Such levels of power don't come cheap.

That PCs will make some mistakes is assumed. Nobody is perfect. Much less them. We are just assuming that this particular bunch is free of that crippling reverence for the status quo that plagues classic superheroes, and has the courage to try and change the world to a degree commensurate to their abilities. Just for change, let's get some superhumans that have the soul of an activist, not of a boyscout.

"Anybody can be an hero, a prophet, an aristocrat, a saviour, and a god. Anybody can and should strive to make his life and the world as good and as free as he can. Failing to try out of cowardice or laziness, willful ignorance, apathy, these are crimes that stain the soul to the level of an animal, even worse. I'm no special. I'm doing what everyone should do, I was just given more reach to do more, and farther, and I choose not to defame my potential nor skirt my duty. Just because so many fail their duty to themselves and the world, so should I? The blood of everyone, man, woman, child, and animal, that gets hurted or slain while the likes of you waste your potential into inaction will not be on my hands. I will not oblige you; but mind you. Anyone who tries to oblige me and others like me to ignore our duty and obey laws wrong and unfair will do so at his own peril. We will resist, in whatever ways we are able". OOC: yeah. It was a typo. Plus, I'm not a native English speaker. I try as much as I can, but some mistakes slips by now and then.

"Courage and vision to change the world always look like a folly and a crime to the coward and the dimwitted. Everyone has the possibility, and the responsibility, to change the world for the better. I just have a greater leverage, and a greater duty".

Yawn. How cliche. My PC would likely respond "While you wait for the bleathing masses to stop picking their noses while looking at the latest reality show and notice problems, dissidents get killed and tortured, innocents are slaughtered, the ozone hole widens, and the environement gets ruined for the future generations. If destiny has given me these godlike powers, it's my responsibility to use them as I deem best, to make the world a better place, and I won't skirt my duty. If you don't want to be part of the solution, stand aside, or be part of the problem" Fortunately, all of the group has agreed that no character will be given that kind of Clark Kent boyscoutish personality, so the obnoxious four-color "noninterference" cliche will not raise its head (unless some PC were to stoop to widespread slaughter of innocents or casual killing from the sheer psychological pressure of waging a revolution, but that's another story). All PCs and NPCs of the character group will be of the kind that want to interfere in mankind's problems. Objection rejected.

Well, unfortunately, in my country the publication of The Authority got truncated in the middle of the Seth story arc, so I'm still waiting to see how it further unfolds. Nonetheless, The Authority, Planetary, Watchmen, JLA's "Earth 2" mini-series, and the current Thor's Reigning story arc (which in my country is still in the middle of the Vortex story arc) are all major inspirations for our series. Probably this will sound like a blasphemy in some ears, but IMO The Authority and the Reigning Thor look so much more truly heroical than their four-color counterparts, as they are not afraid to address and do something about the REAL woes of the world... >You are forcing your players to go into a mode of play where it's more "choose your own socilaistic, sociopathic, despotic, adventure" rather than allowing them to let morality be their guide which would in turn allow them an out in this situation. Why don't you allow the guys to walk a path of their own choosing.>> Come on, this is just plain silly. It is obvious that all the group has mutually agreed to set up a story cycle where we'll explore the themes and ideas exposed in this thread, which we are all interested in. No one is "forcing" nobody. If the themes we have chosen to explore, and the course of action we have decided the group's PCs and GM-driven NPCs will follow, srikes anyone as "socialistic (please take note that not in all countries this label, much less liberal, is meant to be a mark of shame), sociopathic, despotic", too bad. We agreed that it mght be more interesting and fulfilling to explore what would really mean to fulfill responsibility to the world and mankind for godlike power, and that it would be more realistic and heroic to try and redress the real problems of the world, by revolutionary means if need be, instead of having characters act as the world's boyscouts. >>Since you're the GM, in order for the campaign to be "challenging" not only from an RP perspective but from a gaming perspective, It has to be possible for the characters to lose, fail, and/or even die in pursuit of their cause.>> Of course, one of the main purposes of this whole thread is to gather ideas about how properly set up challenges and opposition to the characters's endeavour, which plainly is extremely ambitious and challenging. >>I have a hard time seeing how they could achieve their goals without effectively being at war with the major nations, agencies, heroes and villains in the world. If they knock off an oppressive government or megacorp by extralegal, undemocratic means, what guarantee do the successors have that they won't be knocked off in turn the moment they do something disagreeable to the group? In effect, they are going to be ruling the world, if they have veto power over the decisions of sovereign powers.>> So you appear to agree that deem widespread resistance and all-out conflict is unavoidable, and the only possible outcome is utter defeat (with imprisonment, or more likely, death, and being reviled in memory as the consequence) or total victory. We are going to set up characters and the setting so that they *may* be able to wage successful global war of conquest, if need be. But surely it should be an hellishly difficult thing. We'd prefer if the characters do not start with world conquest as the avowed goal, instead they would begin as determined radical activists for a series of interrelated noble goals like environmental protection, peacekeeping, crime repression, and if resistences mount, find, amid much soul-searching, that they have to escalate into beating the world governments into submission, and becoming the world's benevolent overseers, with the emerging goals of winning such a conflict with the minimum possible of casualties and damage, and setting up a system that is better for mankind and the world than the previous one. We have discussed the points you made, and we realized that OOC, the story line would realistically include characters starting with their socio-political radical activism, but then facing increasing opposition from major governments of all the kinds you described (covert strikes, smear campaigns, threats vs. loved ones, loved ones and the public getting alienated with the characters, characters facing the temptation of "Hollywoood" rutting in fame and excess), slowly escalating to armed conflict (with government super-agents, team-ups of superhumans ideologically opposed to the group, the armed forces of superpowers). Eventually, if characters are successful they would have to take over the reins of powers from the governments they toppled, and try to steer the tottering boat of civilization. IC, they would start as idealistic but radical activists, that confronted with increasing opposition and the outrage of seeing opponents used massive force against them, would harden and slowly realize the necessity of take power. The issue would then be to win efficiently without devolving in atrocity (as war so easily tempts to do), and the unpleasant task of seizeing power without being uttery corrupt by it. Someone has suggested that we tone down vigilante crimefighting (or at least killing criminals unless really necessary or in the face of lethal force), among the group's aims, and we concentrate on more morally tenable aims like environmental protection, peacekeeping, and deposing dictators. This would still involve technically illegal, but more morally tenable methods, that would reduce loss of life and basic personal rights (like blowing up or forcibly stopping polluting operations). Only in the face of escalating pressure and use of lethal force from opposition, they would resort to lethal force (but never intentionally against civilians, even if some heart-wrenching "collateral loss" is likely), open war against governments, and taking over the reins of power. And after taking (IF characters are successful) over?? Well, there are several possibilities. We'd rather prefer avoiding characters becoming Dr. Doom-like absolute dictators, ruling by whim. Besides, being terribly four-color cliche, it's unrealistic and would tilt the moral ambiguity of the characters too much toward villainity, unless the war had ruined civilization too much that iron-fisted dictatorship would be the only thing preventing chaos and sliding into barbarism. Instead, we'd prefer the character setting themselves up as a kind of global guardians/supervisors, with the rights and responsiblities of sovereign nations and a kind of parallel Security Council, with veto and enforcing powers over the governments to garantee that the group's basic agenda is heeded, but not full political power. Very roughly, it might be something like this: The Group, to be known as the World Overseeing Council, will have full veto powers on the laws, international treaties, and single articles of laws and treaties, of all nations. The WOC will have full pardon powers on all the civil and criminal violations in all nations, both individual and collective. The WOC will have standing property rights on all land, air, sea, orbital space, and underground of the Earth. Free tenancy rights are garanteed to all existing proprietors, provided they fulfill the environmental, fair business and labour practices, and human rights guidelines of the WOC. Existing international treaties, or the most advanced national standard, will be used as the basis for the guidelines. Severe violations of these guidelines will cause tenancy to be revoked and reassigned on the basis of the best use project. Bona fide violators may be indemnified with funds from the Development and Conservation Fund. A tax on all financial transactions will be paid to the WOC. The revenues will fund a Development and Conservation Fund, to be administered by a no-profit organization, to be expended for, among others: environmental reconstruction, no-interest bank for the poor, scientific and medical research, cultural conservation, education, humanitarian relief, space colonization, and health. The WOC will act as a World Court, with supreme jurisdiction on, among others, environmental damage, human rights violations, unfair business and labour practices, disputes between nations, metahuman affairs, and weapons limitation. Failure to comply with the Court rulings shall constitute a capital crime, to be converted in fines, imprisonment, community service, or other penalties, at the Court's discretion. The Court reserves the right to avoke all controversies about metahuman affairs. The WOC members will have full diplomatic immunity, and a WOC representative for every five WOC full members will be a permanent voting member of the U.N. Security Council. WOC decisions shall be taken with a three/fifths majority. By a three/thirds majority, new members may be accepted, and by a four/fifths majority, existing members be expelled. Members of the U.N. Security Council (which will be expanded to include as permanent members Germany, Japan, India, Brazil. The U.N. General Assembly shall be splitted in two chambers, one directly elected by the peoples of the world, and one chamber nominated by the governments with voting rights weighted according to the country's economic power), regional supra-national organizations, as the E.U., and the U.N. General Assembly may propose new members for the Council, or they may be co-opted to the Council on its initiative. WOC members must be bona fide metahumans dedicated to preserve and defend the freedom, welfare and happiness of mankind, and the preservation of Earth's biosphere, with metahuman capabilities sufficient to efficiently and single-handedly defend the WOC's goals against all enemies. The WOC sponsors scientific and mystical reserach aimed to grant metahuman abilities fit to fulfill conditions for WOC membership to deserving candidates. Outstanding human citizens who have especially enriched mankind for their cultural, scientific, social or political activities may be proposed and accepted as honorary or candidate members of the WOC with limited voting rigths. And if and after characters take over?? Before all, it is uncertain whether the outcome of the war we'll leave enough of the sioo-political amd economic infrastructure of modern nations intact to allow such of an ordered and limited takeover. It may be that massive use of nuclear weapons, and massive all-out superhuman brawls leave civilization in a smoldering ruin. In which case the PCs would have the Herculean task of helping mankind rebuilding civilization. And in the power void, other supers would be likely tempted to setting up their little enclaves and feuds, with the potential with more power struggles. Or surgical strikes against government top leaderships may leave civilization's infrastructure intact enough. Then PCs would be faced with the chores and temptations of power. Other supers following their examples and trying to enforce their agenda, or loyalist normals and supers setting up a guerilla. The ever-present temptation to setting up absolute dictatorship or resort to atrocity against civilians in the face of further resistance. The bore of wading through administrative detail. The crowing of sychophants, groupies, and worshippers sprouting up everywhere from their very success. Super-villains or alien invders seizing the moment and striking against a disorganized and weakened human civilization. How much damage do you think would be needed to throw the machine of modren civilization in full disarray?? Just deposing top national leaderships and smashing the top enchelons of corporations with the worst environmental and human rights record, as it would be in the group's intentions, doesn't seem quite enough. BTW, since RP is also about escapist wish fulfillment, and all of the group are cordial Bush-haters, one scene we are likely to want into the story, if the things escalate into full war and the characters are winning, is them storming the White House bunker and killing/deposing/humiliating on live TV the current US president's fictional lookalike and its bunch of cronies...err aides and Cabinet (though we are fair: anti-Western baddies and Third-World dictatorial governments like North Korea's president and cronies, Castro, Burma's junta, Arafat, Iran's ruling clergy, China's party dictatorship, and every localizable nest of Islamic terrorists on Earth would have been exterminated by the group long before things come to war with democratic governments; doing away with such scum would be high on the list of the starting goals in the characters' crusade. And given the current Administration's general stance, it looks like they are going to choose war tactics that will goad the group into elininating them than say the governments of Britain or Japan). Who gets to succeed if the President, VP and Cabinet members are eliminated??

As regards the population issue, a grass-roots non-violent resistance movement would indeed be one of the few ways to put characters in a little quandary, and a lot of soul-searching. The way I see it, they would restrict to non-lethal ways of enforcing their agenda, and there are issues they would still feel legitimate to pursue against the will of the majority: e.g. forcibly blocking environmental damage by breaking the tools, or destroying weapons. Again, popular support to wahling won't amount to much, if whalers keep being sinked. As for the president, the moment he ordered to use lethal force vs. the supers, that would be an act of war that would legitimate killing him. It's not an act of conquest, if you don't set up as the ruler in his place. It's a reprisal. Declaring oneself unbound from the law *isn't* the same as attempting world conquest. It's more akin to waging a war of independence.