psm

Re: Overhauling characteristics Wholeheartedly, agree. I've been tinkering with an idea lately to add a new primary characteristic called "Senses" or "Awareness". I'm still trying to figure out if I want to make a figured characteristic also but I really haven't come up with a good reason for it. Basically, I want characters to roll once and first compare the roll against their "Sense" check. If they succeed they are aware of something. Then I use the same roll and compare it with their perception. If they succeed then they know what it is. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to test it out so I have no idea if it would work.

Re: If *you* were the Spectre...

Re: Where have all the Superheroes gone? Speaking of Milestone, I loved Static. At the time that was my favorite comic. Anyway back to the subject. I think we need to make a distinction when we talk about superheroes as compared to the superhero genre. I can see where you are coming from when you say that superheroes don't deal directly with social problems anymore. However, I would disagree that the genre has abandoned social issues. If you look at Ex Machina, Civil War, or Black Summer you'll see references/metaphors for current events (okay, basically the same current event). It's just being handled differently than it was in the early Bronze Age.

Re: I am a comic book dinosaur. For Marvel you could try: Agents of Atlas (I think the tpb is coming out soon) Astonishing X-Men Runaways (comes in cheap digest size). The series are pretty recent but have that old world feeling you're looking for.

Re: Twofer

Re: A Thin Moral Line...? Honestly, I would disagree. Having greater resources, training and hopefully oversight would lead one to believe that there would be less causalities of bystanders at least (the villains are on their own) and easier management of hostile situations. Of course one can make the case that a superhuman's powers would so overwhelm their opponent as compared to cops that there would be no chance of a situation getting out of control. Unfortunately, this will never happen within the superhero genre (or does so rarely) because it would be a boring story. Then again I guess that never really happens in police stories either. Judicial punishment is accepted over vigilantism because it applies a common agreed upon set of laws to all people. In addition a criminal's verdict is decided upon by a group of peers based on evidence (hopefully) and not one individual. It also includes transparency to the public to make sure that the laws are being applied even handedly. Vigilantism is a very subjective method for distributing justice and leads very easily to abuse. Not to say that the law will always bring justice. Obviously it doesn't. I believe that all death sentences in the US have been stopped because new dna methods have cleared numerous death row inmates. I'm sure there are instances when an act of vigilantism is more in tune with justice. This is especially true in comics. Most heroes have such an unwavering moral compass that the public would be able to trust them blindly. Even when they do make mistakes it's never in areas of morality. Unfortunately, the real world is a much different place. When the most prominent group of masked vigilantes in US history is the KKK you know something is amiss.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions See to me it's the same thing. When I see a retcon I know it's there to either correct a mistake, eliminate the previous writer's direction, add new character or story elements or to allow for the writer's interpretation. Most feel very mechanical/artificial, take me out of the story, and almost always emphasizes plot over character. I would almost prefer the writer to just jump in and tell the story. Admittedly, that is just me. From what I can gather in our conversations, you need some form of logic (even bad logic) to justify changes in continuity. Plus, some changes can't be introduced in that matter regardless. Often changes in tone or audience just have to happen. The death of Gwen Stacy is a perfect example. Wow, it took us a few pages but we actually agree on something. I've been saying for years that all character and stories need a shelf life. At some point a character or situation will lose it's relevancy. In addition by continuing the constant cycle of old characters you continue the constant cycle of old themes. I think it's one of the reasons that the superhero genre is somewhat stagnated and has kept away the mainstream audience (Direct Market doesn't help either). I think you're are missing my point or maybe I just don't understand yours. I was using Tony becoming an alcoholic (or Speedy becoming a heroin addict) as an example of continuity change. We could also use Sue Digbny becoming a rape victim or Pym becoming abusive or Banner having MPD. Although, those character traits weren't there or even remotely exhibited when the character was originally created or used for decades they were applied later for the purpose of the story. Now, when is a change like that considered character development and not mis-characterization or bad continuity? I think quite a bit of it has to do with the eye of the beholder. Regardless, of the technique it's still overwriting the previous writers work. Changing "Swamp Thing" from a transformed Alec Holland to an earth elemental with his memories is pretty significant. Having it explained away is nice for the reader but from the writer's standpoint his work is now not relevant. And yes it would have been a loss. Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions That's impossible. With characters and situations that have no visible ending you have to change continuity at some point. Do you still want Reed Richards and Ben Grim to have fought in WWII? Do want Tony Stark to go back to being a non alcoholic? There is a constant change. And if wasn't for writers invalidating earlier story lines we would never had "Identity Crisis" or the Alan Moore's "Swamp Thing". Additionally, if we couldn't change continuity we would still be saddled with Ben O'Rielly and the world of Hero Reborn. I understand your point. I don't agree with it. My argument is that they change continually for the purpose of the story. Sometimes they reflect our laws and sometimes they don't. Most often just being ignored because it would impede the writers plot or current storyline. How else would you explain Magneto, Juggernaut and Frank Castle walking around as a free man. Someone decided that it was a good idea to have Magneto run Xavier's school. So they used whatever lawyering they needed to set it up. Need a superhero to testify, make it legal to do so. Need Daredevil to go to jail apply real world laws. It's whatever the story context calls for. I agree with you opinion of the act. It's definitely callous and immoral. It certainly goes against the principles of our constitution. However, the act as described during Civil War was no where as insidious. It must be another continuity change. I'm guessing it was changed with the Initiative.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions You were around in the Silver Age? Okay, you have a few years on me. One thing you said struck me as unusual though. You are depicting the current comics as the Rust age, the next step after Iron. To me they actually feel like a return the Bronze age in a lot of ways. I don't see them being as grim and gritty as what went on in the 90's. Different interpretations I guess.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Killing isn't what dictates if someone is a vigilante or not. Any act of violence to mete out justice (or more specifically that person's version of justice) can be considered vigilantism if done outside the constraints of the law. Superheroes have always been vigilantes. Although, I have always enjoyed the no harm, no foul mentality in comics. Naturally, the idea isn't questioned often because it would ruin too many stories. It's the same thing or worse for many stories in the action genre too. Did Mel Gibson ever once try arrest anyone in any of the Lethal Weapons? Then you have most Steven Segal movies where he is beating the living tar out of people usually with no regard for the law (or Geneva Convention ). Hell, most action movies go even farther in that they don't even question the idea of killing much less vigilantism. Hey, sometimes it's enjoyable to watch a good guy beat the crap out of a bad guy without worrying about all the grey moral ambiguity.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Wow, I never thought of it that way. With technology changing the way it has, does that force the audience to have a greater suspension of belief towards secret identities? Obviously, any writer can write a multitude of reasons for a hero to still retain his secret id. I'm just curious if that forces that style of the genre to be less accepted by the general public. Nicely said.

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever. Although, I don't have any problem with Superman, I can see where people would have a tough time relating to the character. I don't know if thats because of bad writing or him just being a difficult character.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Because they have a cool reality show. Also bounty hunters aren't considered vigilantes.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions I've read Civil War a few times now and I think you are mistaken on the context of the registration act. It clearly states that if you wish to pursue superhero activities you must register with the government. There is nothing in there dealing with registration based on genetic traits. Nor is there anything in there about how long someone has to serve or being required to serve (unless it was stated in one of the ancillary books). The only thing I personally disagree with is that the heroes aren't able to register with different levels of government based on choice. I could definitely see Spiderman being associated more with the NYPD than with the feds. Why is it not valid? Just because you don't agree with their choices doesn't mean that it's wrong. I don't know if there can be a right and wrong on this. Just because something has been established doesn't mean it can't be altered, especially within a fictional setting. True, but I was trying to keep it within the context of our current state. Vigilantism is immoral in today's society.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Alright, I agree that wasn't the point you were making. I stand corrected. However, it's still new for the MU which is the point I was trying to make just not very succinctly. This is really were we don't agree, which boils down to a difference of opinions. We can of course keep going back and forth but it's going to get us nowhere. As stated previously, I like the changes. I think it adds excitement to a genre that has grown a bit stagnant. As you have stated you don't care for the new paradigm shift. And no matter how we try to frame our arguments we will not convince the other side. Nor should we even attempt. If you don't enjoy reading Marvel comics (which is really the most important thing), then nothing I can say or do will change that. Yes it would be. However, my bone of contention is that masked vigilantism is not an underlying assumption of the genre. It may be an underlying assumption of both DC and Marvel but I consider that to be a more stylistic interpretation than a necessary element. The reason I made that point was to demonstrate that our argument was based really on a difference of opinions. Plus, saying that you are not enamored with the changes made at Marvel is not going on much of a limb. Especially considering a paragraph ago, you said it was "asinine" and "the current shift in the MU, have been for the worse". And as I previously stated it's a new idea in the context of the MU. The whole point was that it wasn't the government that passed the law but the american people (80% of the population voted for it). Was it bad characterization to make Cap and the other heroes disobey the law in such a manner? Probably. Bad characterization aside, Tony was following the will of the people. Now, the second question, which is even more pertinent, was it an unjust law? Within the old framework of the MU, yes it was. As you stated it was not only acceptable but encouraged to work outside the law. Within the new context, which we have been arguing about, it is a form a vigilantism and henceforth illegal and immoral.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Wait, since a particular theme was visited twenty years ago it should never be dealt with again? That's ludicrous. Secondly, who says you have to accept the genre as it is? I feel that's incredibly obtuse. It's been done pretty much in the same style for the past seventies years (as you pointed out) shouldn't it be time for a change? I mean is the whole idea of the masked vigilantism really a key component for the genre? The tv show Heroes (or Savage Dragon) doesn't fall into that trope and it seems to exist quite easily within the superhero genre. I don't believe that questioning the idea of masked vigilantism is de-constructing the genre as much as it's telling it in a new style. I personally applaud Marvel for incorporating new ideas into their story telling. Obviously, you don't. Except, Stark wasn't trying to arrest him. He was there to offer amnesty. It was Cap and his crew who decided to attack their fellow friends, federal agents and various heroes who also spent their life saving the world. They were in the wrong. The registration act was a law by time they met. If they didn't believe in the law they could have staged a peaceful resistance or appealed to the american public. They didn't have to resort to violence. Well actually, they kinda did for the purpose of the genre but within the context of the story their actions were as culpable as Stark's were.

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever. Yeah, next they'll start brainwashing villians. My vote goes for Psylocke. I'm not sure how a British telepath becomes an asian ninja but even I can't stretch my suspension of belief that much.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions He couldn't withdraw from the war. He understood that he was the only thing keeping Shield at bay. He was the reason that Cap and his group was offered amnesty in the first place. An offer they turned down by attacking first. They didn't have to start the "war". So he fought his friends to save them knowing full well that he would be treated as a pariah. That's hardly villainous.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions It's not that baffling. The audience doesn't care for new characters. If they did Marvel (DC) would flood the market with them. Or at least they don't care enough to let the old guard fade. As it is, I think Marvel is doing an excellent good job of introducing new characters in the last few years. Runaways Hood Jessica Jones Young Avengers Ant man Gravity New Warriors 2.0 Avengers: Initiative (Gauntlet, Cloud Nine) Echo Ronin Layla Miller Winter Soldier Sentry X-9 Plus, they are doing a pretty good job of reintroducing older characters. Iron Fist Luke Cage Spider-woman Moon Knight Agents of Atlas Loners Ms. Marvel Omega Flight Blade Black Panther Nova I haven't seen this many new (or unused) characters being introduced since the 70's. I agree with the assessment on the New Avengers. Although, not technically a dark champions team in power level, they certainly being treated as such in tone and story. It makes for a nice change from the Mighty Avengers.

Re: A Thin Moral Line...? And thats not even taking into consideration power level. Having people like Superman with power levels comparable to greek gods would be considerably different than having a person with above human strength and speed like Captain America. The latter wouldn't nearly affect the world as much as the existence of flying demi-gods.

Re: A Thin Moral Line...? What, I'm arguing is that your argument against the Punisher can be used against all superheroes. See, you originally argued that the Punisher would never work in reality because sooner or later he would either hurt an innocent, make a mistake, or put innocent bystanders in jeapordy even if he was morally correct (which he isn't). You even used a drunk driving analogy to iterate your point. This I agree with. However, the same can be said for all superheroes. Regardless of morality or intent, they would continually do the same thing. You use the example of us stopping a mugger. Sure, that example is clear cut and strengthens your case. However, that's not the same as disguising once self and illegally enforcing the law on a continual basis. Especially, when your powers give you the equivalent of a concealed weapon (if not worse). How many times have we seen a masked superhero run into a bank robbery with no idea how many robbers or bystanders are involved. Obviously in the context of the genre this isn't a problem. The good guys always win and no one gets hurt. In 'reality' this could be catastrophic. Even though the intent was to stop the bank robbers the results could be far for more deadly. Would the law go easy on him? Would they even know that he was trying to use non-lethal force? Even if it wasn't considered first degree murder wouldn't the death of 1-4 bystanders be as bad? I'm sorry the hero in question would be acting irresponsibly. He is placing himself above the law and willfully endangering innocents. Even if things worked out this time, how long before someone got hurt? How long before a case gets ruined because of a masked vigilantes interference. In reality (reality being the key word) they would be just as ineffective as the Punisher. It would be impossible for them to do what needs to be done and just that. That is the point I'm trying to make.

Re: A Thin Moral Line...? I disagree with many premises that you are making to sustain your argument. First, vigilantes are not police officers. They are not sanctioned by the law, they are not held accountable and they are not trained. In the eyes of the law Punisher and the majority superheroes would be viewed in the same light. Secondly, exactly how does a superheroes intent have any bearing on the consequences of their actions? Just because they 'attempt' to not use lethal force is not a guarantee that violent consequences would not happen. Especially, considering that most super powered vigilantes jump into a fray with no plan, usually causing large amounts of property damage. Yet, here you have the Punisher who is much more methodical in his execution and working on a smaller scale more prone to a mistake. How's that possible? You are not treating both scenarios with the same brush. If you are going to accept that Frank Castle is going to sooner or later make a grave mistake you must also accept that you're garden variety hero will also do the same. Just because one has good intentions doesn't make him any less of a murderer when innocents die in the eyes of the law. In both situations they are in reality working above the law in an irresponsible manner. As for the whole 'super heroes fight villains that cops can't handle', that's part of the genre. Isn't kinda weird that whenever a person discovers they have powers instead of joining the police academy or military they don a colorful costume and go fight crime? If these vigilantes wanted to really help they would join the local police force where they would have access to numerous resources, training and knowledge of the law. Lastly, I'm glad the world will never see costumed superhero vigilantes except in comic books.