psm

Re: Building a Hero...

Maybe for starters, give him the ability to see through any camera/security device within a .5 mile radius. Or for something even a bit hokier give him the ability to teleport to any location that he has a picture of. Admittedly, they're not stellar powers but they might be nice additions to what you come up with.

Re: A Thin Moral Line...?

I think that's fair enough' date=' but my point was (or rather, my view is) that the Punisher can only be a good guy [i']as a fictional character[/i]. That was the whole reason I pointed out the difference between his falliability as a person within his own world, and his infalliability as a fictional character in our world.

 

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.

 

The Punisher might be like a drunk driver who goes, say, a whole year without ever causing an accident or even breaking any traffic laws. If any drunk driver did that, it wouldn't be because he was cautious - it would be pure luck, given human limitations. He would lack sufficient control over himself to guarantee this outcome, and even if it did come about, we would still hold him blameworthy for creating the risk. The Punisher, even if he did happen to kill all and only people who 'deserve' it, is guilty of arrogantly assuming he can guarantee that outcome. I argue that no human being has both the clarity of moral vision and the simple logistical capacity to ensure such an outcome. I say that even if the Punisher kills all and only people who really needed killing, it would be an accident; as a human, it is exceedingly likely that he will make a mistake or be forced to harm innocents or near-innocents in his quest. This is also possible with the police, of course, but we accept their risk as normal because no one police officer has such unlimited carte blanche to execute justice, and the police are answerable to us, the people.

Yes, but couldn't that argument be used against all superpowered vigilantes? Just because a well meaning superhero plans on subduing a villain in a populated area doesn't mean he will, at least not in the real world. I mean vigilantism in its self is inherently wrong. Now put on top of that most heroes have as much power as armored assault vehicles. Sooner or later some villain or hero (and definitely innocent bystanders) will end up dead. Hell, that was the entire crux behind Civil War.

So, yes you are correct, the Punisher would be wrong in the real world. Unfortunately, so would ever other fictional character.

My own personal view of the Punisher is that he is an anti-hero. He's can only be considered heroic when he faces a villain that is more morally corrupt and dangerous than himself. So for me it's the context of the story which paints his morality. And I pray that the real world never sees somebody like Frank Castle.

Re: When did [Title X] Jumping the Shark

Although, I wouldn't use the term "jumping the shark" because I really like the current series. I would say that the Avengers had a negative turning point when Roger Stern left the series due to a disagreement with editorial. This was back in the late 80's. Right after he left Walt Simonson took over and things went downhill fast. Then Bob Harras took over and things got worse. Everyone started wearing flak jackets with too many pockets (not that I'm blaming Harras, I know it was editorial) and we end up with the "Crossing". It was during this time that we get the young Tony Stark and Force Works too. Some very unreadable comics.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

The other thing about Captain America is that before he was Steve Rogers, buttkicker of evil, he was Steve Rogers, frail starving artist.

 

He was trained to be a symbol for troops everywhere and to fight for everything that he loved. That doesn't mean he enjoyed killing people.

Actually, that's a recon. Steve Rogers was never originally a starving artist. He wasn't anything before Cap except frail. It wasn't important to the story. I believe the artist part was added in the 70's.

Re: Best Mystic comic/character ever?

The Spectre, when it was written by John Ostrander.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

This is easily explained and doesn't even take fiction to do so.

 

In WWII there was no way DC or Marvel could write stories about heroes who wouldn't kill the enemy. If they did, it would be a smack in the face to all the soldiers fighting in the war. This was a WORLD WAR and in war people die, primarily soldiers. (This is really a no-brainer.) If the comic book characters are heroes, then when they fight Nazis or Japs, they're going to kill them. WWII wasn't about unmasking heroes, robbing banks, etc., it was about the Axis Powers achieving world domination by means of war.

 

Captain opposed to killing. And? He's not at war. All heroes were pretty much opposed to killing. Simply because a soldier needs to kill on the battlefield in a WAR, doesn't mean when he comes back home he's ready to kill every bank robber he meets. Soldiers who come back from war (especially in WW2) had had their fill on killing; they didn't need it or want it any more. Just because someone has been To Hell and Back doesn't mean they want to live in hell any more.

 

And as for viewing Commies as the enemy? Why is this difficult to understand? Communism is opposed to Democracy. Stalin was a communist (well, dictator, really). China went from being an ally to being a communist opponent after a government change. Now that Russia didn't need the US/UK help, there was no need for being buddies. Stalin could be Stalin. This isn't Captain America saying "Gosh, Stalin was such a wonderful Boy Scout in the 40's, what's happened to him in the 50's?" This is plain and simple understanding. With Hitler dead (and Japan surrendering) Stalin didn't have an Enemy attacking him, so he could do what he wanted again.

 

This "change" in Captain America would be a rational growth. The changes Marvel has done recently to their characters has not been rational.

It's an interesting theory but I really disagree with your assumption. Obviously, Cap as a soldier has to kill. It's what soldiers do and it's an unfortunate reality of war. On this point we agree. Also comics were offshoots of pulp fiction a genre where killing was also accepted behavior. Look at guys like the Shadow and soldiers look like pacifists.

The area we don't agree on is why Cap doesn't kill anymore. See, Cap was brought back in the 60's when comics couldn't be published without the "Comic Code Authority". As long as that stupid seal was on the comic then the character would never be able to kill anyone. Also, I think companies were a bit hesitant to have their characters kill because their audience were young children. Not too many characters end up dead on Saturday morning cartoons either (minus Dragonball Z). So his character adopted the new personality due to outside forces more than any true growth on the character's part.

You know what amazes me the most though, is how much the 'comic code authority' and the children's audience has affected the superhero genre. Do you realize no other genre has such a stringent "hero's don't kill mentality". Not westerns, sci-fi, fantasy, samurai, cop dramas or action flicks cater so much to that philosophy. Luke Skywalker, Frodo, Robin Hood, and the Lone Ranger can kill multitudes of enemies and still be considered heroes. Hell, Harry Potter has caused more death in four years of school than Captain America has in 40+ years.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

I think the problem with the supposed 'character growth' in Civil War is that it wasn't. There was no gradual evolution or even a logical reaction to a life altering catalyst. It was sudden out of character behavior.

 

Suddenly:

1) Tony Stark retroactively has been doing such things as collecting Thor's hair in order to clone it? And is now willing to do anything, no matter HOW underhanded, including inciting war with Atlanteans, to achieve his goal. He trusts no one with his master plan, not even some of his best friends.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of retcon changes either. I still have a hard time accepting the JLA mindwiping villians. Additionally, I would have preferred if CW moved slower. It was a wam bam story which could have benefited from a slower progression. I still think the same thing about Daredevil's Born Again story line.

Anyway, do you consider this retcon to be worse than making Tony Stark an alcoholic. The guy was clean and sober for twenty years and then some writer decides he has a drinking problem. If I remember correctly he almost killed two people while wearing the armor blitzed out of his mind. Or how about his attitude during the Armor Wars. He killed Titanium Man (unintentionally) and caused a prison break. I'm not even going to mention the whole young Stark and evil old Stark during the Avenger's crossing. All I'm saying is that it's not completely unprecedented. He's always been a ends justify the means kind of guy.

2) Reed Richards is a mad scientist, willing to perform experiments that VonDoom is too honorable to do. Cloning. Setting up a prison in the Negative Zone? All this from some sudden Retcon about an Uncle we never heard before while ignoring Reed's past stance on his science being abused? McDuffie tries to put a good spin on it, and he comes closest... but it is too little too late for Reed.

Loved McDuffie's explanation. I wish they had incorporated that in CW. Still I don't see any of his actions as being completely out of character. Not like they are making him an axe murder. He's always been more driven by his logic than his emotions. Then again his science is never wrong which is why he did what he did. He was right and his actions saved his friends.

3) Captain America THE Most popular hero in the Marvel Universe, the one who if the choice came between obeying him or obeying a congressman, most army guys would be flipping coins to decide, has the public pull of a leper. He become brutish, uses violence first, and worse, somehow he loses most of his tactics skill. I can understand why he quit in CW #7, but the problem being is, it isn't like the same idea for the same reasons wouldn't occur to him 6 issues before if need be. The Cap who unmasked before Cameras because he thought it was the right thing to do suddenly can't think to get a press conference? He talks like Ultimate Cap more than the 616 guy, and it is all the sudden.

When has any superhero not used violence as their first choice? The whole genre is built on the notion that righteous force will always prevail. Plus he probably just assumed that they would fight, team up and then beat the real villain. It's always worked before.

Seriously, the only true liberty I can see taken with Cap is his infallibility (which I'm sure is one point we will disagree on). They made his character make a mistake. Although he was fighting for the right reasons he was going about it the wrong way. He let things get out of hand. I still don't know if thats a mis-characterization or just a different context. When is the last time Cap made a mistake (or any hero)? Doe's him being always right constitute a character trait or is just a different type of writing? Personally, I think its a different style of writing thats becoming more prevalent. We are seeing characters make mistakes which is something I think is new.

By the way Hermes great post. You guys on this board are quite insightful and passionate. Love seeing passionate people even the ones I disagree with.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

Outgrown? Because somehow I like people who are established as heroes to remain heroic, I'm stuck in some cycle of juvenalia? I 've read Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Grant Morrison, people of craft at the top of the game who have been ranked among the best writers in the language, people whose keyboards that Millar isn't fit to lick. Don't you dare tell me that comics have "outgrown" me. I'll put my stacks of Watchmen, Sandman, Preacher, Starman, and other comics against the current "adult" comics that Marvel's churning out. Heck, I'll put up my Miller Daredevil collection, which managed to be radically adult without turning the character into something completely unrecognizable, against the new regime. I have no problem with adult.

 

The word "outgrow" implies growth. I'm inclined to think the opposite. I'm inclined to take an attitude toward Marvel that's similar to Norma Desmond's attitude toward motion pictures (albeit without the vampish dementia).

 

I resent like hell being told that comics have outgrown me just because I won't accept inconsistent characterizations, when I like previously heroic charaeters to remain heroic within human boundaries, and when I question why people like Reed Richards and Tony Stark are, by editorial fiat. acting as out of character as Mohatma Gandhi taking a machine gun and massacring the British. This isn't adult. This is lazy hackwork meant to prop up the "shocking" storylines. Don't tell me it's good writing. I've got over 25 years as a published writer and an English degree which tells me that warping characterization to service a plot is a reasonable basis for criticism.

 

I like Brubaker's writing too. Without the larger context of Civil War or some of the other garbage that Marvel's put out, this could be an interesting story. Unfortunately, the larger context is a killer. After seeing what's been done to characters I've cared about for decades - and that emotional connection is a strength of the genre that shouldn't be dismissed as fanboyism, because establishing emotional bonds with the audience is one of the main functions of fiction - I really don't want to see it. Now good fiction, especially genre fiction often does horrible things to the protagonists. But there are lines of sadism that I'm just tired of crossing, not from this crew of writers and editors. The well is polluted. So if I miss a good, passionate, well-told story from Brubaker, so be it. I'll go back to my Astro Cities and All-Star Supermans and maybe pick up Invincible, which somehow seem to contain adult and even - gasp! - modern themes without being as noisome as what's being peddled in the House of Bad Ideas.

 

Don't mistake "outgrown" for "bored", or a cynical and adolescent contempt for altruism for "modern".

Wow, excellent reply! First off, I'm man enough to admit that you're some what right. Comics haven't outgrown you. Nor has the genre and I'm sure there are many on this bored that still have a great joy for comics in general.

However, I never truly meant that all comics had outgrown you. Yes, those were the words I used but that was never my true meaning. What I really meant to say was, that these characters have outgrown you.

Look, at all the examples you have of mature themed comic series. Not one is based on a character with a long history, except Daredevil. Which I'm glad you bring up because there was an outcry when Miller started adding noir elements to the series. Many people wanted him to go to his more idyllic days when Gene Colan was drawing him. Very few remember this because there was no internet and the majority of people liked the new changes. The same is true now.

You talk about mis-characterizations. Tell me, what other characters do you know of that have been around for decades and have continually published new stories every month. Every month!! None, you know why? Because characters and stories can only have a certain shelf life unless they change.

See, all of you want the characters to remain the same. You have your set notions of who they are and what they represent. You have a vested interest in them because you grew up with them. Unfortunately, they can't remain the same. To remain relevant they must change. The audience for comics is maturing. There focus isn't on illiterate soldiers from WWII or young children anymore. Their market is college students and young adults, the buying public. As such the characters must become more complex as does the world they live in.

If you notice in Civil War there were actual causalities from the heroes fighting. When was the last time there were any causalities from any super hero fight? Yes, there was always huge amounts of property damage but no one got hurt. Hell, Hulk went on rampages every other issue and no one died. Now, thats not the case. The context and tone of their world is different and as such the characters must change and face more difficult choices, whether it's mind wiping or fighting your friends.

The only other choice Marvel/DC has is to either stop publishing older characters and start new creating new ones (which I actually wouldn't mind). Unfortunately, that will never happen because, the companies don't want to and neither do the fans. Plus, it would give the competitor a huge advantage while the other company tried to generate interest in their new characters. Or worse, keep their characters the same and cater to a hard core group which is slowly dwindling. If you don't believe me look at the numbers for Cap and Iron man before CW.

So to reiterate, you are the old guard, these characters have outgrown you. I'm sorry, and I'm not trying to insult any of you but it's true.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

 

Most of this is based on what I think a comic should be, of course. In one of the threads it was mentioned that the age of the average reader was in the 30-40's (?). I would believe that, since that was the age of comics when they were good. My personal belief is that the current industry has forgotten the very reason comics were successful in the first place. They were NOT real world stories, examples of social reform or a pulpit from which the writers and editors could preach about the worlds ills, or in current fashion blame the US for every and anything. Comics were escapism and adventure. Clearly defined good guys versus clearly defined bad guys (from the readers perspective). They may be misunderstood, but they were GOOD GUYS. Now all the stories are trying to beat us to death with whatever social agenda that the staff has. Right now they have picked up the flag of the anti-American press. The US is EVIL and the source of all the worlds ills.

That is incorrect. The original superheroes were all born out of world ills. Superman was created by two Jewish kids as a means to deal with the injustices of the day. He originally, fought mobsters, dictators, and common thugs. The stuff of the real world. The same is true for Batman. Even more so is Captain America who was a direct reflection of our attitudes for the war in Europe. Hell, he punched Hitler before we were even in the war. It wasn't until later that superheroes started to move farther and farther away from reality. In part due to the comic code authority which made it virtually impossible to deal with anything except the most ludicrous villians and far out worlds. Then you have Marvel in the 60's which was always a reflection of society. The Fantastic Four has allegories to the space race between Russia and the US. The X-Men are very loose representation of the civil rights movement. Then you have Spiderman. Spiderman who always was the everyman. The kid from NY, not some made up city, who had problems with rent, girls, and his elderly aunt. Captain America in the 70's became Nomad because he lost faith in his country do to Nixon. How is that not based on reality. Marvel characters have always been imperfect, flawed and right outside our door step.

As for the anti-american press comment, well that's not a subject I will approach here. Plus it would probably get us both banned.

Can there be an Iconic hero that embodies the core US values. Of course not! They must be rewritten to be somehow imperfect and then if the readers just can't get it, the character must be killed.

 

Killing off Captain America after totally destroying the fabric of what their comic line was is no surprise to me. After all they have heartily embraced the ludicrous belief that ALL government agencies are evil especially if they are American, rather than the truth of government agencies are made up of people who can be evil, good or just stupid.

I think you are missing the point of the story. They were trying to reflect the debate that is going on in this country between freedom and security. Currently, with the Patriot Act, warrant-less wiretapping, and the removal of habeas corpus, they showed that security has trumped civil liberties for the time being.

All in all I think the proof is in the bottom line. Marvel is making its money from the movies, most of which are using 80-90's as the story line. DC is just strangling. As for comic sales themselves, I think my eyes give a better indicator than any parroting of company figures. When I recently decided to try a few comics again, I had to look for a comic shop. They are very very rare today compared to when I was younger. Back then it wasn't a question of finding the store, rather it was which store had the best selection of back issues. When I go into a book store today, instead of 10-20 people reading their favorites from among the 30-40+ lines represented in the long wall rack that was as large as the regular magazine racks, what I is see one spindly rotating rack with maybe 30 books total from Marvel, DC and the Indies. In the SciFi/Fantasy section they will have two to three shelves of Graphics Novels containing collections were the bulk of them are not current, but rather they are Indies and collections of Marvel and DC from 20+ years ago.

 

Where are all the loitering readers you ask?? Go find the Manga shelf. Manga occupies shelf space about 1/4th of the area given to SciFi Fantasy in the big stores(B&N and Borders). Plus there are always people reading in the aisles. And not just one segment. I see young girls, older girls, young boys, older boys, and a healthy sprinkle of adults from both genders.

 

This thread is a pretty good measure of why the comic industry is killing itself off.

All that shows is that mainstream audiences don't care for the superhero genre. Thats nothing new. Superheroes almost died out in the 50's. Romance, western, military and crime comics were selling in the millions. The comic code authority is the only thing that saved them from oblivion. The manga market is what the American comic market used to be at it's height.

1 or 2 posters think that the current books are good or great.

 

2-4 people have basically said that the staff has promise and occasionally put out something good, so maybe they should be given a chance.

 

And the rest of the overwhelming majority indicate various levels of disappointment with the complete mishandling of series X or Y.

 

Out of the hundreds of issues over the last few years, even the supportes are defending their position by pulling up a few and widely spaced examples of "great issues" or "great stories". In a strong industry, good and great books should be the standard and the crappy issues should be rare, not the other way around.

All that shows is that we are in the minority here. Sales have been up across the boards for comics. Civil War has brought in new readers to the comic stores. More importantly, the comics being created now are more inviting and more appealing to the mainstream market for all the reasons you probably hate them. This is especially necessary because as the years go by Marvel/DC will focus more of their efforts on the bookstore market.

Sorry, you guys are the old guard and comics have outgrown you.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

Hey, I have no problem with people letting off steam. If I did I would never be on the internet. Like I said I never truly believed you meant it. Still, I think there are certain sentiments (like wishing horrible deaths) that should be avoided at least in public forums. Plus, I would hate for you to get banned for something stupid like that. Who would I be able to argue with.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

One day the present group who runs marvel will die ( hopefully REALLY horribly)

I know you're not serious when you say this, but even in jest it's really uncalled for.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

It appears that we are in the minority here Starfighter. I'm probably even more in the minority because I think this is one of the most creative periods in Marvel's history. I love what Quesada is doing and I love the chances they are taking. I wouldn't change a thing. Well, maybe a few things.

Hermit, as for "The Truth in Red, White, and Black", I actually agree with you on the art. I think Kyle Baker is an amazing artist but the style he chose for that series really clashed with the tone. I think it lost a lot of it's audience because of that.

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

Well, it seems the character isn't going to be written. Steve is either dead (and yes, that's probably temporary), or in critical condition. Either way it doesn't seem he'll be back in his own book. Why should I pay for a comic series that isn't showing the character I want to read about?

Obviously, I can't change your opinion nor do I really want to. But by your own admission, Brubaker is an excellent writer. Aren't you the least bit interested in what he has coming? Especially, when he says that he has the next two years already planned out. Admittedly, it may (or may not) feature Steve Rogers but it will be part of the Captain America mythos. But if you can't enjoy a story no matter how well done because it doesn't contain your favorite character then you can't enjoy it. I'm going to pay for it because I love comics with great stories by accomplished writer/artists, but to each their own.

I'm also guessing that you didn't get the "Truth" series either?

Re: Cap is dead!!!!

Wow, I'm amazed at the responses. How can you all be so cynical? It's not like a real person died. It's not even like the character isn't coming back.

Do any of you even read Captian America? If you did you would realize that it's the best its been in years. Ed Brubaker/Micheal Lark have been hitting it out of the park since they're first story arc. Yet, none of you seem capable of trusting them to write the character/storyline as they see fit. Fine, you don't want to stay around for the ride, in my opinion it's your loss.

Re: Comic Geek in need of help

Here are a few links:

http://www.thecomicfanatic.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=737&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=6352

http://www.newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=51142

I hope this helps.

Re: The Character Idea Thread

Buy Parachute 30" Gliding' date=' only to arrest falls (-½). That way he can reach terminal velocity, but still be "gliding" and so take no damage when he hits.[/quote']

 

You'll have to forgive me, I'm not clear on how to actually use gliding. I was under the assumption that gliding allowed the character to decrease his velocity until he was falling at safe speed. The higher the ability the faster the pc can decelerate. Going by your example, it sounds as if the character can fall at that speed (terminal velocity 30") with no negative effects. Is this right? If so then I feel like a complete idiot.

Re: The Character Idea Thread

I really like the character Statis. Although, expensive I would go with a Gadget VPP and add EDM (Time Travel: Any Physical Location, forward only, useable as attack, activation roll, personal immunity(a limitation in this context)). That should take care of the majority of the character's shtick.

There is one character I've been mulling over. I've always wanted a character who could fall from any height and take no damage. Yet is normal in every other way. Punches, kicks hurt just as much. Drop him out of a plane in the stratosphere and he lands on his feet as if he jumped off a step. Obviously, he's nickname is parachute. I just can't seem to wrap my head around the power.

The only thing I could up with is Desolidfication (damage from gravity induced velocity). It just seemed too hokey.

Re: Marvel's Best Martial Artists

Just curious ... when did Cap get some serious martial arts? Last that I knew' date=' he might have Commando Training ... but can't see him having anything beside that. Did I miss an issue when received something more?[/quote']

 

According to his recant origin (I believe by Stern/Byrne in the late 70's) after receiving the super soldier formula he was trained by the top martial (including boxing and wrestling) artists in the free world. He supposedly continued his training during the war and after he was thawed. Kinda like how batman has mastered every known martial art while earning a phd in forsenics, biology, chemistry, electronics, stunt driving and obscure knowledge 101 before the age of twenty five. Hey, its comics.

 

Cap's style is definitely more influenced by boxing, judo and tae kwon do. You very rarely see him use any wrist locks, funky stances or pressure points. By the way, AgentX, good memory about the Aquarius bit. I think that happened in one of his annuals.

 

By the way I noticed there's no love for USAgent. Not that I came blame anyone. He's been written very inconsistently. Originally, he was tough enough to defeat Captain America and easily beat down Wolverine (but everyone did back in the day). Since then he has become a whipping boy for every b-list villian.

 

Here's my list:

 

1. Mantis (although I could never stand her)

2. Karnak (still not sure he should be on this list because of his powers)

3. Captain America

4. Black Panther (without gadgets), Shang Chi, Iron Fist, Daredevil, Wolverine, USAgent

5. White Tiger, Nomad, Tigra, Batroc, Elektra, Moon Knight, Sabertooth

6. Black Widow, Baron Zemo, Mr. Immortal

7. Hawkeye, Kitty Pryde, Punisher

 

Yeah, I know there should be one character per number but so many of them are interchangeable.

Re: Marvel's Best Martial Artists

Honestly, I don't know how to answer this question. In the sense of pure technique, Mantis, Shang-chi, Iron Fist and White Tiger would lead the list easily. However, when you include enhanced characters like Captain America, and Black Panther it gets a little murky. Characters like that have above human strength, endurance, reaction timing, agility, physical resistance along with superb fighting skills. I don't think Cap can even get winded. Its like pitting a highly trained fighter unarmed against a grizzly bear. It's just not a fair fight or a fair comparison. So I need a little more clarification on what we are judging on. Is it technique or who would win in a fight?

Re: Superteam or Super Fight Club?

The current campaign has been going on for 16 sessions now (average 2.5 XP per session per player) and these players haven't bought into the team concept as yet. None of them have spent their XP toward teamwork skills, a team base or team vehicle. I have repeatedly impressed upon them that they are the only "team" of more than two superheroes in the world to date, and yet it still isn't getting through to them. When I sat down and discussed the situation at length, I got the argument that having a base or vehicle would lead to "firemen" adventures where they would only be doing "mission" oriented adventures with little role-play.

I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here . Why is it important for your player's to have a team base/vehicle in the first place? If they don't want to I'm not sure you should be enforcing it upon them. If you've survived 16 sessions and everyone (including you) has enjoyed the game so far why jeapordize that?

Re: The Role Models

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the FF (or Challengers of the Unknown or Doom Patrol).

You have four great archetypes.

Reed Richards - Scientist Hero.

Ben Grim - Tough-guy hero (plus one of the best examples of the angsty hero)

Susan Storm - Soccer mom hero

Johny Storm - Frat boy hero.

Plus, combined they are a good archetype for either the super powered family (Noble Causes, the Incredibles) or super powered adventurers (Doom Patrol).

Re: Character: The Man With No Name

Great write up. I can't wait to see the write up for the Old Man (Lee Van Cleef).

Designer's Notes:

Basically created by Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone, The Man With No Name is now a classic Western archtype. His origins can be traced to the character of Sanjuro, played by Japanese actor Toshiro Mifune in the film Yojimbo, and apparently the model for Clint's portrayal of "Joe" in A Fistful of Dollars.

 

(The Man With No Name created by Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood (with help from Toshiro Mifune), character sheet created by Michael Surbrook)

Actually, the history of the "Man with No Name" goes back farther than that. Yojimbo was based on the book Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett. In Red Harvest the protagonist goes simply by the "Continental Op" (short for continental operative), the original man with no name. I believe the continental op also appeared in another novel and a bunch of short stories.

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

Or perhaps the special effects budget didn't allow for it

Re: Why are robots always immortal?

Actually, what surprises me is that in sci stories that take place in the future that humans aren't immortal.

If there are scientist smart enough to create machines with sentient thought then there should be scientist smart enough to stop the aging process. Plus, I can tell you right now there would be a bigger push for that than making your iPod tell you, that you have horrible taste in music.

Re: When you think "Superhero"....

When I think of "superhero" I think of Marvel and DC.