psm

Re: Overhauling characteristics

Moreover the linked intelligence/perception thing has always bugged me. Hero just does not do animal senses justice. Frankly the smartest and the dumbest will perceive equally well unless they have a physical defect. There is no good reason to link PER to INT.

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...

If I recall' date=' DC had some story where Joker was beyond Spectre's power because both Joker's insanity, and his lack of remorse. Sounds bogus to me, but I maybe getting the details wrong.[/quote']

 

That was pretty much the gist of it. It was during the Ostrander/Mandrake run. In the story the Spectre finds out that the Joker isn't really evil. His actions are due to the mental changes caused by being dropped in a vat of acid. It would be the same as murdering a cat for killing a mouse.

 

There's a scene in there where the Spectre actually fixes his mind and the Joker breaks down and starts crying because he realizes all the terrible things he has done. Naturally, instead of keeping him fixed the Spectre returns him to his original state. Makes perfect sense.

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

Option 6: The ex-surgeon with the crippled hands had exhausted everything known to medical science and in desperation sought out a reclusive sage who dwelled on a mountain far from humanity. There in the Balkans, he found a kingdom of animal-men and their creator who taught the doctor things about biology no other man knew. He returned and continued to practice medicine, but now he specialised in the most bizarre and peculiar treatments and cases. He quickly lost his license, but continued unlicensed, and he was still the man to go to if you had a radioactive insect bite, an alien parasite, a case of lycanthropy.

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

But sooner or later a villain or innocent bystanders end up dead if it's left

to the cops, so how is it worse if supers do it? Indeed they're a lot less likely to kill someone than an organization that relies on sheer numbers and firepower to win.

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.

You claim that vigilantism is it's self is inherently wrong, if so then why is judicial punishment right? What does a court funded by taxes have that a volunteer court doesn't? Surely it's not the assurance of justice, (Duke non-rape case, the Scotsbourgh boys, Dreyfuss, etc.). So what is it? Vigilantes deserve to be judged as they judge others, something that rarely happens to the servants of the State.

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

This is the problem with the soap opera style of story telling. If you're looking at stories and story arcs in isolation' date=' sure, all that matters is that the story makes sense in and of itself. If you consider the entire "run" of the soap opera to be a single extremely long and complicated story, facts established in Chapter 1, Book 1, should never be casually contradicted; at most, it should be found that (Character Name) was wrong when he stated (fact being retconned). It's even more of a problem for comics than for regular soaps, as comic characters tend to have much longer histories, and comic book writers rarely work together under tight supervision in the way that soap writers have to. [/quote']

 

Sorry, I didn't get back to you sooner. I've been busy with family.

 

Anyway, I see where you are coming from and in a perfect world it would make sense. Still, you're asking for the impossible. With constant shift of creators/editors/regime changes something is bound to slip. In addition to that DC/Marvel both take place in a facsimile of our world. Even simple changes in our society will have some bearing on characters who have lived longer than my grandparents.

 

I said existing continuity shouldn't be violated, not that you couldn't have well thought out reboots and retcons. There's a difference between intentionally saying "The Crisis wiped out that event" and just forgetting that Doctor Strange used Chaos Magic in his own book while having him declare that it doesn't exist in another. As to how to retcon or reboot, the Multiverse approach was fine in my opinion. "That was Superman of Earth 2; Superman of Earth 1 never fought in WWII." That's part of why why I initially liked the Ultiverse; characters could be updated and kept young in the Ultiverse and allowed to age and change in 616. Shame it didn't work out that way.

 

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.

 

Yes, I do. Let 616 Reed and Ben either get old and retire or make them immortals (the Edgar Rice Borroughs option), but leave them their history. It makes for more interesting characters.

 

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).

 

Respect for continuity doesn't mean an end to character development; it's unnecessary for character development to mean anything. Who cares if Tony overcomes his alcoholism in this story arc if the next writer doesn't give a piss about continuity and writes him as a female drunk teenage prostitute? If you want his rise and fall to elicit any interest from the reader, you have to know the character and develop him within the bounds of his own history.

 

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.

 

That would have been a real loss. On the other hand, Moore was careful to retcon rather than ignore what had gone before, and unlike Millar and co. he had the touch for it.

 

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.

 

It's pretty much what I expected from Marvel's current creative team.

 

Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

No' date=' it means that these laws are different in that setting.[/quote']

 

No, it means that those laws are different in that story. Might change down the road again.

 

Sure, insofar as it doesn't violate existing continuity. When the laws of physics start being applied in such a way that superpowers never existed, it might make for a good What If or out of continuity series; in continuity, it's a crappy idea, invalidating the earlier story lines by other writers that made us care about these characters in the first place.

 

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.

 

The MU clearly had a set of laws for dealing with Supers, based on existing continuity. Pretending that those laws did not exist invalidates the stories that have gone before.

 

My point was that the MU already had an implied body of law allowing for superheroes, and so I picked public, widely respected heroes with established relationships with law enforcement. The MUs laws are not the same as ours, and never have been.

 

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.

 

Now, as to the Superhuman Registration Act's actual terms:

 

Bolding is mine. So, the law requires not registration of those who want to fight crime, but those who have any superhuman abilities at all. And as the Initiative and Civil War books show, registration leaves you open to being drafted for an undefined term of service, and imprisoned or surgically or chemically mutilated to have your abilities removed if you fail in your training or refuse to serve.

 

To support a law calling for a choice between conscription, imprisonment or mutilation based on a genetic trait is not an act of heroism; it's what heroes are meant to be fighting against.

 

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

If the reader doesn't feel like writing off Supers and the Law as a genre bit' date=' then I'd suggest that the laws in the Marvel Universe were never the same as the laws in the real world in the first place. Either Superheroes were allowed for under the law as it existed in the setting, or the Avengers, Fantastic Four, She Hulk, etc. were sitting there in public for decades in gross violation of the law and nobody noticed.[/quote']

 

I don't know if I necessarily agree with those being the only choices. Obviously, the Marvel U is based on our own. To what degree will change depending on the story and creators. Just because something from our reality (like the laws of physics) isn't used or obeyed doesn't mean it doesn't exist in general. It's just doesn't exist for that story and can be applied later. The same would go for the law.

 

But, if I had to choose I would definitely pick the latter. I see it the same as jaywalking, bit torrenting and sodomy laws. Yeah, they exist but they're not strictly enforced because they just don't have the public support.

 

Lastly, those are the three worst examples you could use. The FF and She-Hulk don't have any secret identities and operate in public with what can only be assumed the government's permission. The Avenger (well the previous incarnations) operated under permission of the NSA. I mean that was the whole point to having Henry P. Gyrich as their government liaison and that was back in the 70's.

 

As for character's like Daredevil and Spiderman I would definitely say they were breaking the law. Matt Murdock was arrested and sent to jail because of it.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

As far as the whole Burt Ward/Dark Knight thing: You may be right, it may be a case of me just not wanting to accept the changes, but I don't think it is. I was around in the Silver Age, I accepted Bronze, even tolerated Iron, but I'm drawing the line at Rust.

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

Neither were costumed crimefighters that didn't kill in the Marvel U.

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

The concept of a Secret Identity and Anonymity is becoming outdated as we live in a society that has more information gathering technology. If SHIELD wanted to find out who SpiderMan is, a satelite over Queens would eventually allow the agency to narrow its search. A telepath mind scanning Hell's Kitchen from the safety of a van could crack Daredevil's ID. The Carnivore system can intercept any email transaction that an underground hero uses or any cell phone conversation. Add super surveillance gadgetry in, and the hero who doesn't have the resources to counter them is out of luck.

 

Ironically enough Registration keeps "Secret IDs" plausible in the sense that the government can arrange for cover identidies, DNPC witness protection, etc... in the same way that undercover agents and spies' IDs are kept classified, when the gov't doesn't leak their IDs for political reasons (but I digress). Perhaps a better updated term is "Classified ID".

 

Besides, secret IDs were increasingly being exposed. Every hero knew every other hero's secret ID, and enough DNPCs, allies in government agencies and uh... villains could have pieced together the network with plain old humint.

 

IMHO, Secret IDs are a romantic idea for a recently past age whose plausibility doesn't hold water any more. I wish it weren't so, but common sense and understanding about the techniques above makes it so. (Again, this is merely my opinion).

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.

The dilemma that comic publishers face is whether to market to new generations or to existing ones. I'm sure that when Batman went Dark Knight, a lot of "Adam West" style fans were outraged. There is no doubt that when Gwen Stacy died after falling off that bridge, a lot of fans were outraged that comics had gone so bleak. But history now looks favourably on those signifigant changes. Civil War itself will not be remembered for its story, but my belief is that it will be acknowledged as the most significant event for this decade, Marvel comics-wise.

Nicely said.

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever.

I personally don't see what people have against Superman. He has been in a lot of superb stories, as well as the usual clunkers. He has a wonderfully deep history and supporting cast - everyone from Lois Lane to the Legion of Superheroes to Comet the Super-Horse. Sure, some of it is silly - but the whole Iron Age debacle is a result of a backlash against silliness.

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

Then why are bounty hunters so popular?

Because they have a cool reality show.

Also bounty hunters aren't considered vigilantes.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

The will of the people has historically supported slavery' date=' ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Following the will of the people is also not what earns you the right to call yourself a Hero. "I was just following orders" is not a Hero's answer.[/quote']

 

Yes, but we live in a society that doesn't support those things anymore. I can understand in a historical context. Even in the early years of the genre when the local government was still ruled by the mob bosses I could understand. Not today though. We live in an enlightened society (for the most part). I truly believe that if this country ever supported any law by 90% then it would be just. But as I said early the more important issue is if the law is just. I still believe in the context of the story it is.

 

Lifetime indenture based on an accident of birth is unjust under any context whatsoever. The registration act does not say "you must register to fight crime"; that could be justified, and I'd read the story. It says "You must register if you have a genetic trait (an active metagene), at which point you will serve the state for an undefined length of time or face imprisonment or chemical/surgical alteration".

 

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.

 

I've been discussing the story, in the context of Marvels established continuity. The context Millar and Quesada are attempting to force onto an established setting is not valid.

 

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.

 

Illegal is not necessarily immoral. German Christians who hid Jews during the Holocaust were breaking the law, but their actions were entirely moral.

 

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

And if that were the position I'd stated, I'd be suitably chagrined.

 

And for the record, twenty years ago, forty years ago, and eighty years ago when Wylie first tried to publish Gladiator. All that's old is new again.

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.

No one at all. However, the Superheroes of 616 have been acting under genre rules that said putting on a mask to perform freelance crime fighting was a good idea since the Marvel Universe began. Changing the rules on them now is asinine. If writers want to tell stories in a Universe where the rules are different, that's what the Ultimates line is for.

 

The genre has changed over the last seventy years, and will continue to do so. Some of those changes, including the current shift in the MU, have been for the worse.

 

Nope. But the Marvel Universe has gone through decades of characters who evolved under a set of rules presenting masked crime fighting as widely accepted and laudable. Changing the rules on those characters is possible, but requires a much defter hand than was used here. Again, the Ultiverse was the right way to go for the exploration of these themes; a half-fast Civil War in 616 was not.

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.

Challenging the underlying assumptions of a genre is deconstructing the genre. Here's a wiki link.

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.

Speaking as a moderator, I'd advise against telling other posters what they do or do not think or mean. It's pointlessly confrontational. And, again, Civil War incorporated no new ideas.

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.

Being able to make the claim "they could have surrendered" doesn't let Tony keep the title of Hero. The heroes were defying an unjust law, in the only way the writers of a crap series would permit. The minions of the government that passed the unjust law were the bad guys.

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

The same "challenges" were issued by Moore, Miller and Veitch over twenty years ago, and by Farmer and other science fiction writers twenty years and more before that. Hell, they were present in Wylie's Gladiator in 1930. I don't need a course on deconstruction of the genre, and the genre doesn't need further de-mythification. There comes a point when you have to accept the genre you're working in and just try to tell a good story.

 

When an idea (those who take the law into their own hands are vigilantes by out of genre standards) has been kicking around for seventy years and more, passing it off as something new doesn't really wash.

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.

His creation murdered a hero, while Tony was attempting to imprison without trial and impress against their will into lifetime indenture men who had repeatedly saved the world. That is villainous, and it's not a hard distinction to make.

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.

To me, all of Marvel's heroes are the worst. Look no further than Civil War where you have the Avengers acting like neo-nazis.

 

And these are the good guys?!!!

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

The new Tony Stark is a villain who thinks he's doing what needs to be done for a higher cause' date=' as is the new Reed Richards. That's not the same as a Hero.[/quote']

 

Actually, everything you said can be applied to all costumed heroes. As soon as they put on a costume they are basically saying that they are above the law and are working for a higher cause. They become super powered vigilantes.

 

See, one of the things I did like about Civil War was that it not only changed the MU but challenged certain notions of the genre. The idea that superheros should work outside of the law is so ingrained that nobody sees it as wrong. Its been a cornerstone of the genre since it's conception. One of the hold overs from it's pulp roots. However, if you ever look at it from a logical (well story logic ) standpoint it's illegal. One of the main principles of this country is that no man is above the law. That holds true regardless of ability or title. Stark realized this and was trying to give his friends an intervention.

 

The turning point for Tony was failure to withdraw from the "war" after the death of Bill Foster (the death of a good man and a long time friend of Tony's, caused by Tony's own actions), followed by failure to protect May and MJ Parker, innocents that he had endangered. Heroes may be on opposite sides, but you don't keep the right to the title after the actions Tony has taken.

 

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

We've been through (many) periods before where publishers have decided that what's wrong with Fantasy is that it's too fantastic. It was stupidity then' date=' it's stupidity now. Luckily, it will also pass.[/quote']

 

True. But I think the opposite can be said also. Making characters too fantastic can lose people just as quickly. Doctor Strange has never had a long run or a high selling one. I think one of the reasons is because he became too powerful. After you fight multiple cosmic level entity there's really no where to go. Not saying that I want to see him reduced to the level of a card tricks but seeing him struggle against non-cosmic level is a nice change of pace. Like you said it's only temporary anyway. Plus, he's still a far cry from a street mage.

 

And I must be the only person that sees Tony Stark as being more heroic now than before. Not to say he's not a jerk. He still is but I find that makes him more interesting anyway.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

Instead of trying to shoehorn Dr. Strange in to a street level campaign' date=' why not let him play with the big boys? People like Silver Surfer, The Watcher, the Celestials. I see the Eternals are trying to make a comeback, throw him in that mix. You have all these high powered beings around, start using them.[/quote']

 

Just consider it the Green Arrow effect in reverse. You know, how a guy with a bow can be successful on a team with Superman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman, Flash and Green Lantern. I figure it's the same thing. It's not that Dr. Strange isn't still part of the upper echelon, the writers just don't want him always overshadowing everyone. I mean really one of the biggest draws to a team book is to see how the characters relate to each other. If that means temporarily powering down a cool character to fit him into a storyline then I'm okay with it.

 

But I guess, I can see how some people would be upset with it.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions

Eh, it's not just Marvel. Rather than take the time to build up a new character, market him/her, place them carefully, and let the 'old guard' fade away gracefully, it's easier to keep the originals around, play to the existing fanbase.

 

Which always baffled me. Marvel created some interesting characters, only to fritter them away and sideline them almost as quickly. Arana, Gravity, MC2, the list goes on...

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...?

Considering that ordinary humans still required centuries of debate and armed conflict to establish rule of law and the limits of the state, I can't see any reason to think that a world with supers would have been any neater. While there might have been "superhero wars" between super to establish ground rules, it's just as likely that wars were fought between super and normals with the same result. A lot would depend on the exact era when supers first became common.

 

Keep in mind the mere existence of people with powers wouldn't necessarily change things either way. The existence of persons with malevolent paranormal powers (witches) was an assumption in the real world from the days of the Roman Republic through the 18th century; and was a capital crime in every nation from China to England.

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...?

I'm not entirely clear on whether you're arguing that there's no actual moral difference in what Spider Man and the Punisher do, or whether you're saying that they would be perceived as being the same. Regardless, I disagree with both. The law clearly sees the two cases as different. If a person, you or me, tried to wrestle a mugger to the ground, we might be seen as irresponsible to an extent for even trying it, being as that it is not our place to do so. And in that regard only, yes, Spider Man is in a sense similar to the Punisher. But so long as it was clearly not our intent to kill, even if we accidentally brought about the mugger's death, we would not be tried as a murderer in the fullest sense of the word, nor would we be commonly judged as such, regardless of whether the man in question was innocent or not.

 

Conversely, if we pulled out a gun, aimed for his head, and pulled the trigger, we'd be considered a murder, again regardless of whether the man was innocent or not. Indeed, we'd be considered a murderer in spirit even if we were to miss.

What, I'm arguing is that your argument against the Punisher can be used against all superheroes.

People seem to keep coming back to this "doing what needs to be done" theme, which completely misses the whole point of my argument. And that is that in any world in which he really exists, it would be impossible for him to "do what needs to be done" and only that.

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.