David Blue

Re: Are Defenses to low?

Okay' date=' this is some serious thread necromancy, but I'm interested in seeing if the perception of the Champions standards for attacks versus defenses have changed over the last four years....[/quote']

What's changed for me is that my vision of a great fight has changed more and more towards the fights we see in modern superhero movies, like Spider-Man 2 (2004) and Spider-Man 3 (2007), The Punisher (2004), Fantastic Four (2005) and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007), Daredevil (2003) director's cut and Elektra (2005), X-Men: the Last Stand (2006), Ghost Rider (2007), Batman Begins (2005), Superman Returns (2006) and Hellboy (2004).

 

Everybody I know agrees that the train fight in Spider-Man 2 (2004) is a great fight. On the other hand, when the fights are more Hero System like, as in Elektra (2005), there is much fan disappointment, and rightly so in my opinion. Whap-whap!, or just whap! and down goes somebody - that's weak.

 

So the ideal has headed one way, towards more and better fighting than was ever seen, while Hero System preferred the opposite approach.

 

It's not a big deal though. First, Hero System isn't all about superheroes. It's a universal system that can be pressed into service to simulate some kinds of superheroes to some extent, but it is not stuck on that genre and does not necessarily even put it in first place.

 

Second, you just pick a gamemaster who doesn't think the published standards are good, and who has his own ideas. Problem solved.

Re: The Incredibles and Registration

I'm particularly asking the players who would balk at such a change to their established universe. Would you play in such a game?

In general, I would not agree to this, and I would be miffed.

Some characters are meant to lose their secret identities. The early Bruce Banner could not have concealed his identity as the Hulk forever. A change to the champaign that took a character like that where he was eventually going to go anyway would be OK. Even so, I would like to talk about it with the gamemaster.

Other characters are very much meant to stay secret. The freedom of action that comes from the fact that they and they alone know who they are is very important to them, and the heavy investments they make in secrecy are worthwhile for this reason. A character like this who has been played by a strong roleplayer for a good long while is likely to have a history of close calls and morally difficult and / or physically painful choices taken to keep his or her secrets secret, along with a lot of rather paranoid player toil put in.

Sometimes you even have to argue with the gamemaster. (The gamemaster says that since you have investigated the Suicide Squad, you must have left your fingerprints everywhere, and Amanda Waller then blackmails you into not revealing her crimes. The player argues that he is running Batman, not a moron, and Batman does not leave his fingerprints everywhere.)

If you're playing the latter kind of character, having that all wiped out by fiat is unwelcome to say the least.

Instead of playing a character who's the captain of his own ship of fate, with possibly world-altering (and hopefully world-improving) long term schemes, you're reduced to running a grunt. While your powers still count, your character concept evidently does not.

Re: WWYCD: Dr. Destroyer vs Takofanes

Just an interesting thought

 

Your character is out on patrol when he hears this battle break out down town.

 

What would your character do?

 

and how would you contain the damage?

Containing the damage afer my death would be Dr. D's problem if he won. If Takofanes wins, who cares?

Re: Sports Mechanics and Atheletes

To answer the David Blue post, I might well say that the question is not so much ' would the character win the 2008 Olympic 1500m in THIS world, but would he win it int he game world. That will depend on everyone else. I'd assume that most characters are going to be pushing or even exceeding human limits for characteristics, so I'd guess your swim hopeful is going to ahve to compare with all the other swim hopefuls. I'd imagine there would be little to tell between the Olympic swimmers in terms of base stats.

 

Personally I'd tend to deal with races between characters of similar ability as a contest of skills.

 

You could buy a PS: SWIMMER, and you could buy it as a skill for each of the strokes, or pay for levels for each of the strokes, anyway. that would explain how two characters with 6" swim and SPD 4, one consistently wins at butterfly, and the other at breaststroke.

 

Modifiers: For each +1" move advantage +2 on the skill roll. For each +1 SPD advantage, +5 on the skill roll.

 

You may wish to make DEX and CON rolls complimentary (better DEX is a better start and turn, better CON means you are able to push that little bit harder.

 

Don't worry about the finishing time, worry about the finishing order. World records would be set when you roll really well.

 

You could even do it as an extended contest; each length, or after so many lenghts, (say 5 or 10, for a 1500m) you roll, and your position is your cumulative total of successes.

 

For example:

 

Character A has 7" swim and SPD 3, 20 CON and 15 DEX, PS: Breaststroke at 14- REC 10

 

Character B has 6" swim and SPD 4, 12 CON and 16 DEX, PS Breaststroke at 12- REC 10

 

Character A has 14- (+2 for +1" move) = 16-

 

Character B has 12- (+5 for SPD) = 17-

 

Character A will average +2 on his CON roll and +1 on his DEX roll, so adds, on average +1 or +2

 

Character B will average +0 on his CON roll and +1 on his DEX roll, so adds, on average +0 or +1.

 

It will be a close call who wins...both will average a +6 result, butt he variation could be substantial.

 

This is completely ad hoc, you understand, but should provide an interesting race. Feel free to mess with the mechanics, it is just a suggestion

 

REC: if END/turn exceeds REC, either reduce your move or SPD so that you are within your REC, or actually factor in the END loss per turn and compare that to END - you can swim at full speed until then, then you have to slow or drop out.

 

Finally you can also have EGO as a complimentary skill - in essence you are pushing when you can. You can either make an EGO roll to push, and increase your move by the appropriarte amount, or use the EGo roll as another complimentary skill, with the caveat that each success = 1 extra END/turn.

Thanks, Sean. Based on the ideas in this thread, I had already been moving to different but equivalent stats, and PS, Swimming rolls as a tie-breaker (possibly with butterfly, backstroke etc. as separate skills, just for the races), but this makes everything much more specific and ready to present to the gamemaster as something we can do in the lead-up races and in 2008.

Definitely we'll be racing for places, not times.

Re: Sports Mechanics and Atheletes

What's his SPD?

He is SPD 3. And thanks guys for these helpful comments!

Re: Sports Mechanics and Atheletes

What does it take, normally, in Hero, to be a seriously hopeful Olympic level swimmer?

I ask, because I'm playing a normal mentalist 14 year old kid whose big ambition is to win a medal in a sport where (a) his mental powers grant him no advantage and ( where 16 is a normal retirement age. His one big shot at glory will be the 2008 Olympics.

He has 6" Swimming, 10 DEX, 13 CON, 13 BODY and 8 REC, PS Swimming 8-, and wants to swim 1500m freestyle.

I haven't seen stats for what someone in his sport should have. Is he a bright, shining prospect, or does he need to be reincarnated with much better stats?

The gamemaster has given me great freedom to define uncertain things in whatever way will best set up exciting struggles for the game. (Who cares if the villains distract him the night before, if the gold medal is either a lock or out of reach?)

The best way to start seems to be to ask people who know the system better than I do for suggestions. What's important to build up? What would the competition look like? What would be a good way to simulate a hard race, or is that not something Hero would do well?

Re: Music To Raise The Dead

Rebirth, track 13 of the soundtrack album The Mummy by Jerry Goldsmith.

This is the music for Imhotep's revival. It is 8 minutes and 33 seconds, and it's highly varied, containing a variety of moods including copious amounts of comic adventure, which suits the movie. It's also very Egyptian-flavored (Hollywood Egyptian, but that is fine for this.)

The Crypt, track 8 of the soundtrack album The Mummy by Jerry Goldsmith.

At 2 minutes and 33 seconds, this is much more concise and sticks mostly to one mood, which is likely the one you want - provided you want big Egyptian magic.

Crowd Control, track 12 of the soundtrack album The Mummy by Jerry Goldsmith.

This is great music to get those zombies rolling forward to attack - but only if you think there can never be too much B-movie Hollywood Egyptian cornball bravado in your game, which is exactly what I do think, but that may not suit you.

Terminator Revives, track 18 of the Terminator 2: Judgment Day soundtrack album by Brad Fiedel.

This is the music for after the terminator has been impaled by the T1000, and he turns back on, drags out the spike that's impaled him, and returns at a crawl to the attack. It's 2 minutes and 15 seconds, and it's simple and crude but tells the right story. Give it a listen, see what you think.

Relapse, track 10 of the Voices of Light CD by Anonymous Four.

This is the music for when Joan of Arc has been beaten down and recanted her (true, divine) visions, and the violin solo express her alone, spiritually dying. That's it, nothing left to see, she's done... Then no she's not done! She "relapses" into her "heresy", that is into divine, self-sacrificing courage and bold life. This would be for a divine, virtuous resurrection, like the return of Gandalf, not for routine necromancy. It's 3 minutes and 43 seconds, and it's beautiful.

Re: Fashionwise, it's still the 1960s

Hermit's poll on "pulling a Gath" inspired me to create two new threads. This is the second, and more lighthearted, of the two.

 

The basic idea is that the fashions of the 1960s are still in vogue.

 

Ideas?

Waistcoats are good, but they don't have nearly the influence on powered armor aesthetics that super-chunky collar-like designs do. (These should be functional, for example a large Egyptian-style yoke that flashes mesmerizing patterns, or lapels that look big enough to be detachable power packs, and are.)

Fringes are good. Especially buckskin. Fur is good too. Anything that's organic or trippy and will break up a simple straight edge is good. Of course this means killing animals and glorifying drug use. Both are good, so if you're squeamish about clubbing baby seals to death so you can look good, it's easy, just get high and get clubbing: win/win!

If you just can't do that, don't de-fringe by halves: you'll need a uniform look with something like Nehru jackets and a bowl-shaped hairdo, to make it clear that you can't fringe because you have to do this other weird thing that you are doing.

There are going to be more weirdo powers run off odd-looking glasses... tiny, tinted, odd-shaped, kaleidoscopic and moving...

Mystic worry beads are good. These should go with turtle-necked shirts. (Most things go with turtle-necked shirts. If you're not going to have a big, exaggerated collar, don't have a collar at all.)

Important choice: you go with a big medallion, or the big flashy belt buckle on your flared pants, not both. It you have worry beads, you have chosen the belt buckle, do not make mystic beads compete with mystic medallions as it's bad karma.

Before we get away from pants: low waistlines and belt-lines! Anyone with a backside is going to be in serious fashion trouble, so much so that I recommend lairy big bracers to hold together what your super-low-slung belt won't be able to. This however is in contrast to...

Bikinis! These are built like bank vaults: high, wide, thick modest and solid, and often metallic. (With super-heroines, this should be real metal.) Much more modest than...

Hot pants!

But getting back to swim-wear and related clothing, there is one occasion when the one piece costume is cool: Playboy bunny costumes have become as respectable as business suits, as the mega-mega-corporation just grew in fame, wealth and respectability till it defined good manners. (And some super heroine is going to have to have a bunny ID.)

The bunny suit includes not only the cute tail but the ears. They're no odder than the false beard and wig formal wear of ancient Egyptians, and they (the bunny ears) are not so unusual, as headbands (with decals, religious and mystical symbols, company logos and the occasional feather) are going to be popular for both sexes. For example, in presidential debates, the parties of the candidates will be instantly recognizable by their (D) and ® logo headbands.

Tie-dye and paisley are good, but the color is much more important than the pattern. Colors should have eye-melting intensity. At least give powerful purple and flaming tangerine a try before you settle for anything less. Unless you are a villain.

If you are a villain, you wear green. If you don't have a green outfit, follow Catwoman's example and get one now.

One final (for now) piece of advice: is you have a completely nonsensical idea in mind, like Red Indian warpaint plus a hussar's jacket in bright silk and/or crushed velvet with elaborated golden braiding: dare to be you!

Re: CHAR: Thundra

How would you see Thundra's greatest enemy, the mighty Mahkizmo?

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/mahkizmo.htm

Equal, or less than equal? (Maybe much less.)

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

Hi! I'm the Brawling Balabanto himself, so let's get straight to the point of this thread.

 

Does your world suffer from "Richest Man in the World" disease? Does every single one of your PC's buy the perk "Wealth?"

I am having a great deal of trouble regulating this. Powered Armor characters and major villains need this stuff for their concepts. And if you have too many powered armor characters' date=' they shouldnt' ALL be able to afford those new powers they want their armor to have.[/quote']It's not just the power armored people, it's the spandex crowd too.

 

Q. How do you have a swing-line, and why are the bracers that fire your lines so hard that you can use them as the "bullets and bracelets" special effect for your missile deflection?

A. Well, I have Mechanics, and I built the bracers in the special materials work shop I have in the basement of my ... um, cheap apartment. OK, no, my large mansion.

Q. Why is this not Wealth?

 

Q. How do you keep these endless disguises going? How do you afford the materials, where do you store all the clothes and props you that you need, to be the hero or a thousand faces?

A. I keep my props and clothes in entire wardrobe rooms ... and I have enough money to do that.

Q. Why is this not Wealth?

 

Q. Do all these identities drive the exact same car?

A. No, different vehicles that would be in character for them, and...

Q. Why is this not Wealth?

 

Q. I'm delighted you took a wide range of non-combat skills, as I suggested, but now: how do you maintain them all? Maintaining skills like piloting and yachting does not come cheap.

A. Well, I can easily maintain my sailing skill at the sailing club I belong to.

Q. Why is this not Wealth?

 

Q. I see you intend to increase your spandex hero's Running and Swimming to Olympic levels of prowess. How are you going to do that?

A. By hiring former Olympic level coaches privately. After I buy Wealth.

 

In future, everybody will be Wealthy. Hey, it must be the Goldilocks economy.

Wealthy Dilettante is too popular as a conception. I'm starting to just say no to people' date=' but it's getting stupid as my game moves on.[/quote']So say no if you want to. It's your game.

 

Out of curiosity though, are you letting Daredevil make spares for his brilliant billy-club in an N-space workshop that goes with the N-space gymnasium in his city apartment? Do you let Spiderman make his amazing webshooters and unlimited refils of adhesives that far surpass anything the high technology companies of the world can do, in his kitchen sink, with ingredients that seem to cost him no dollars and no cents? And so on. And if you do support all that, do your players know that you will and that they can count on your continuing to do so gladly?

Re: Historical Nexus Points

Joan of Arc falls in love as a young woman and consents to get married. She lives a perfectly normal life as a medieval peasant woman - and the English win and keep Orleans and everything North of it.

France becomes a geographic expression, like "the Balkans" rather than referring to a nation, and its contribution to history, including the French revolution and much republicanism deriving from it, is wiped out.

There never is a British Empire as the Double Kingdom (of England and Northern France) is perpetually involved in European wars, often with or against the German states.

This all has the merit of being much more probable than what happened. If you talked to someone in the France-less world and told them what happened in our world, they'd say "you've got to be kidding me. A medieval peasant girl did that? No way!"

-

Basil: "The pirates get tired of Gaius Julius Caesar's boasting about how he's going to kill them, and slit his throat despite the possibility of a big ransom."

That's a great one.

-

Lord Liaden: "Temujin is captured and killed when fleeing his enemies as a young man, never becoming Genghis Khan. The Mongol Conquest never happens." (Etc.)

Another great one.

Re: Stretching a point

That definitely sounds worth a read (ahem... worth a Reed' date=' geddit?) and I've been steadily picking up the Essentials books recently... but hadn't made it as far as [i']FF 4.[/i] Thanks for the tip.

Reading the Reed/Reed fight...

What the stretching fight boiled down to before Reed's order to change partners was a series of grabs and breakouts (with pushing), plus what looks like a one hex area effect killing attack against which Reed blocked successfully using his stretching as a special effect.

I guess the moral for the gamemaster would be to think about pairing basic physical combat actions and flashy special effects before the fight starts.

Re: Stretching a point

Does anyone have experience of stretchy supers fighting each other? I'm of a mind to contrive such a scene and I'm wondering if my fellow Heroes have any particular tips' date=' suggestions or pitfalls to watch for.[/quote']No experience, but an ideal to aspire to.

 

Have you read Fantastic Four #75: Worlds Within Worlds, in Essential Fantastic Four vol. 4? It features three of the Fantastic Four (Reed, Ben and Johnny) versus evil opposites created by Galactus.

 

Reed solved the problem by switching partners, to win with paper - scissors - rock tactics. Till then, it was a deadlock, but a lively, interesting one.

Re: Would you like your character?

Scarlet Scorpion - I'd have laughed at him like everyone else. To be a hero, you can't lose all the time. And Scarlet Scorpion was a bit like Remo Williams except for being humiliated in every fight - too inward-looking and focused on his training and so on to be interesting to talk to.

Thunder - I wouldn't care about Thunder either way, and the feeling would be mutual. Thunder was a government head-kicker, her rewards were her hero licence and her salary. You can cheer for someone like that the way you would for a professional sportswoman who happens to play for a team based in your city, but I'm not a sports fan.

Gladiatrix - I'd adore Gladiatrix as a fan, and I'm exactly the kind of fan she'd love - one who believes in showing your appreciation for a good act. Gladiatrix would die for her fans. I'd know that. I am the fan who would duck out of the crowd to give the downed and bleeding super heroine first aid at high personal risk.

Chain Lightning - I'd probably respect him from afar, even admire him, but I'd never get to know him. He's too paranoid, and too focused on his real job, which is not being a hero in the public eye but beating up demons.

Orgone Man - I don't think I'd like him. Which surprised me when I thought about it. I made him to be morally worthy and upright in every way. He was, and I would admire him for that. I think I'd find him a do-gooding stiff in real life though. Admirable is not the same as likeable.

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

However' date=' going with your example: using force to stop a rape is probably allowed in most jurisdictions. Using a gun as a threat to hold someone until the police arrive is also probably kosher in most places. (Although if he ignores you and runs away you generally can't just shoot him in the back unless you have reason to believe that he's going to kill or seriously injure you or someone else in the process.)[/quote']The statement quoted above is the essence of why I think that a legalistic perspective doesn't have the ethical weight to trump the moral mandate of a superhero (if such a creature existed) to act in an unequivocal and forceful fashion to protect people from (moral) crimes whether the law permits it or not.

 

I've said elsewhere that I use a jihad video test to decide if a character is really a superhero. If you were about to star in a jihad video like Nick Berg or many others, and the possible superhero was aware of it, would you be saved? If so, this might be a superhero. But if they might decide not to get involved, this character is not a superhero, or is at least a flawed one.

 

If you had a signal watch and one quick, covert chance to call one character before the Allah hu Akhbars end and the neck-sawing begins, who you gonna call? That character is the truer super-hero, regardless of who has the mightier powers, the cooler (or skimpier) costume and the bigger sales.

 

"Rape" will do as a substitute for "jihad video". The character who, like a guarantee from God coming good, will intervene to save you from rape, using as much force as it takes to save you, is the superhero. I hold that to be morally valid, regardless of legality. (And trust me, I'm not about to reverse my opinion on this.)

 

As a statement of law as it is, globally, this is fine: "using force to stop a rape is probably allowed in most jurisdictions." That's the spirit: an inclination in one direction and then another or toward both sides at once, shifting with jurisdiction, and coming down on the side of convenience. For example we have the janjaweed rapists acting with government approval but one doesn't want that sort of stuff to happen to the wife of somebody important. Or, Saddam Hussein had professional rapists on staff (and we can be sure that using force to stop them at work would have been illegal in Iraq), but on the other hand (etc.) In the general case, for the good order and smooth running of society and the convenience of the authorities ... yeah, sure (shrug), to protect the victim from an atrocious fate is probably permitted. If it suits those who define and interpret the law.

 

My final word is that I regard that legalistic sort of view as weak in ethics, while I regard the mandate of the superhero (if such existed) to act as, say, Mister Incredible would, to be well-founded morally.

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

There's also what I call the "Silkwood scenario" - not because I have come to a final opinion of that case, which remains muddy and controversial, but just because it is an immediately recognisable label for cases where you want to keep a whistelblower alive. In cases like this, from an intelligent whisteblower's point of view, a superhero team with a reputation for competence and being beholden to nobody looks a far better idea than leaving your survival to uninterested authorities.

Consider the case of highly decorated hero cop Detective Sergeant Roger Rogerson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Rogerson

A man like that fears nothing but a jury skeptical of concocted evidence and "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" testimony. Anyone testifying against or raising persistent fuss about a true police hero like this was likely to be murdered, either by one of his contract-killer friends or by one of his badge-wearing oh-so-supportive police colleagues. "Just handing her over to the authorities" would make you an upstanding citizen - and put blood on your hands. That's another kind of "Silkwood scenario".

There are all sorts of situations where the power, wealth and privilege ranged against individuals is so disproportionate that the sole issue is to keep them alive for long enough for the great mass of ordinary people (because you can't bribe everybody) to be informed and to get interested in what in Hades' name has gone on.

Policeman: "We're detaining you in connection with the murder of James McCord."

Lincoln Six Echo: "What? He was helping us! He was my friend."

Policeman: "Note that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.:

Jordan Two Delta: "What's a court of law?"

- The Island (2005)

A situation like that doesn't call for supine deference to the powers that be and a cool lack of interest in what may happen to a couple of powerless individuals in the meantime, before the social contract, or Heaven, or Karma or whatever works its magic; it calls for bulletproof friends with immense moral courage, for the next ten minutes to a day or so. (And as much network news coverage as you can get.) And if those friends have a habit of wearing capes, and their underwear on the outside, that's not a problem.

Re: Is Crimefighting Ethical?

Our western law is' date=' basically, based up the idea of giving up on personal "revenge/vengeance" for crimes committed against you (whatever they may be) and giving this power of "revenge/vengeance" to an uninterested 3rd party (the police/justic system) on the understanding that they, being emotion free will be better enabled to enact true "justice".[/quote']To the extent that that is true, there are many problems with it.

 

One of the problems - only one of many - is that the uninterested authorities may be all too "uninterested" in the problems of people whose rights can be ignored with practical impunity. The governor with links to the Klan is not necessarily all that interested in doing anything about lynchings. The federal government that sponsors giant killer robots to take care of the mutant problem is not necessarily all that interested in defending mutant rights. The officials who have or are courting sweetheart deals with organized crime, or jihad terror supporting governments, or Hydra or whoever may see to it that the peace is upheld in a partial and circumscribed way.

 

Or, there simply may be no solution the at a price that the authorities see as reasonable for dealing with the problems of unimportant people. This is a very common case, and I used to see it often enough that I treat it as the normal case in my games.

 

There is a regular talk that gets given in cases like this, where the point is for the authorities to let the complainants know that they had better make their peace with the people that they are afraid of, because they are not going to get any protection, without the authorities taking responsibility for that. It's the same in principle whether it's the government forces telling villagers in the hills how things stand with bandits demanding protection, and the slippery line is of course that "this is not a high priority economic area," or a much more mundane case I'm aware of where the neighbours of a violently crazy woman with a large gangster boyfriend avoid confronting her, including by making her loans that nobody supposes she is likely to repay, because she's already burned two people out of their homes (which is how I became aware of the case), and though everyone knew who did it, there were no eye-witnesses, so the police just said: "try to keep peace in your neighbourhood, don't be needlessly provocative and making complaints to the law all the time." Since the woman apparently regards not giving her a loan when she wants one as provocative... That's what "the talk" is about.

 

Then what?

 

Suppose that instead of me or you being asked "what do I do?" it was Mister Incredible? His answer would probably not be "avoid her as best you can, and pretend you're not home."

 

His answer would more likely be: "Don't pay. I'll wait with a camera. Your home will not be torched. And I don't care about her criminal boyfriend."

 

And that, one way or another, would probably get him fired. (Again.) And he would do it anyway, because he's a superhero to the marrow of his bones.

 

Is that ethical? It's supremely ethical. (Well, except from the point of view of the government, and Mrs. Incredible.)

 

 

And we put up with the times it "goes wrong" and a bad person is set free' date=' because it's better that a guilty man go free rather than an innocent man be punished for a crime he didn't commit. (or words to that effect).[/quote']Often what that boils down to is that the powerful take little interest in injustices - past, ongoing and in prospect - done to the powerless.

 

Superheroes see it differently. That, plus the fact that they have the power to do something about it, makes them superheroes.

 

 

Now balance this with the popular thread in modern fiction that allows the person who has been wronged to take the law into their own hands. The Deathwish series of films for example grows from this idea' date=' as well as most westerns.[/quote']To quote Frank Castle: "Not vengeance ... [vengeance is what the madwoman takes when she's "insulted" by the refusal to lend her money or by similar affronts] ... punishment."

 

But it's not even that, but justice, or not even that but protection, without which in practice people don't have the security and dignity that lets them live the lives of citizens.

 

 

It seems that we all secretly object to the common code we're brought up to follow (leave it to the police) and long for the return of "eye for an eye' date=' tooth for a tooth". Whether this is due to the percieved problems in our modern justice systems or it's that we're still so close to our emotional break points... Who can say?[/quote']Sometimes it's a question of thinking about what's right, when you've woken up from the dream of a "social contract" that is not really in force for some. Given that the police didn't take care of it yesterday, and aren't taking care of it today, and aren't going to take care of it tomorrow...

 

What then? Is "it's not my problem (any more)" a good enough answer?

 

 

I've never had anything bad enough that the police were needed' date=' occur to me so I can't say if vigilanteism is a bad thing or not. But it does break the common codes we need to live by in the Polis.[/quote']Not necessarily. It all depends on the circumstances.

 

By the way, vigilantism, done right, works. Sydney's trains at night used to be unpleasantly menacing and dangerous. Nothing was done about it. The Guardian Angels (working on an American model) started making patrols on the trains. (I was too busy at the time to do anything about that but make donations and say thanks.) This was Totally! Unacceptable! Vigilantism! said the police and the government. While fear on the trains hadn't been a problem for the authories, self-help was. Expensive and extensive reforms soon made the trains safer and more pleasant to travel on. (Though of course no credit to vigilantes!)

 

The Angels soon faded out - their job done. Was what they did ethical or unethical? The answer might depend on whether you habitually travelled by train or limousine.

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

In the end' date=' she's a tough character to get a handle on.[/quote']This I agree with.

 

But I think she's worth it, not only for the history and the image (and the marketing), but because she's genuinely different - and not so different that you have to ignore or suppress what's different (like an android that effectively is just human, or an alien with a totally whacked culture that will not provide good answers no matter how well you understand it, like Mister Miracle and Big Barda among others from Apokalips.)

 

Wonder Woman is just different enough that it takes an effort to understand her, and her background is positive enough that it can be a worthwhile effort.

 

There are superheroes who are supposed to be the guy next door. Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man is probably the king of them. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

And there are heroes who are alien, and the more marvelous for it. Wonder Woman is one of those.

 

The problem with the second type is, they still need to be relate-able in some way, and getting the balance right is hard.

 

For example: is Superman first of all the last son of Krypton, or as John Byrne remade him all-American with no interest in his Kryptonian parents and culture? Everybody is going to have their own sense on where the balance feels right. (Superman Returns (2006) feels perfect to me.)

 

Martian Manhunter has changed too, being more and less alien, more and less comfortable in the world.

 

For characters like these to be all they should be, you can't take away their strangeness altogether. and if the way they are written has notes that seem tinny from time to time in consequence, that's something we should accept.

 

I would rather have a Wonder Woman who does things from time to time that sit awkwardly with me - even the burning forest thing - than a Wonder Woman whose difference makes no difference.

 

(And on the whole, I think Greg Rucka's Wonder Woman was a very good one. I just think there's room for even better. Which maybe we're seeing get started now.)

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

Thats not the Wonder Woman I know. If thats how shes being written now' date=' stop reading.[/quote'] Whoa whoa whoa!

 

To quote Buffy the Vampire Slayer on a happy occasion: That was then. This is now.

 

Wonder Woman has a new series out, with a new writer. It's at issue #1. (Issue #2 is slightly delayed.) This is the perfect time to become a new fan, or for an old fan to get on board again.

 

I don't know if the new series will work out - how could I know after only one issue? But everything looks good. Or rather, it looks good!

 

If the character is dear to you, why not give the new series a chance?

 

Comic book superheroes work best with hope, optimism and wild willingness to believe. Are you ready to believe again? I am.

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

David Blue, that was a very good post which made some really pertinent points; but I have to disagree strongly with you over this one:

 

[...]

 

Superman generally does not insert himself into purely political or social disputes, true. But if he's aware of the situation, Superman will not stand by and let anyone die horribly, whether the perpetrator is the American government, the Christian right or God Himself. (And a few times in the past it's almost come to that.) He'll try not to take sides on the issues, or if he's forced to will usually choose the established democratic order, because he believes in it. But no-one is dying without at least due process on his watch, as long as he has breath.

OK, this isn't an ideal replacement example, as it uses animals rather than human beings, but it should be enough to get the idea across (I hope).

Wonder Woman can talk to animals - and they can talk to her. A bird comes to her and appeals for help. It's a forest fire. Wonder Woman goes and takes a look. Yup, it's a fire. So she decides to let the forest burn, but protect some houses. Flash shows up too, and starts putting out the fire. Wonder Woman stops him. After all, she explains, death is part of life, and if we say life is a blessing we must say death is a blessing too. Flash hears out the New Age lecture, and goes back to stopping the blaze - but Wonder Woman stops him, offering combat right there and then. Nothing is going to stop the blessing of death being giving to its unwilling recipients (including presumably the mate and chicks of the bird that pleaded for her help), and Wonder Woman is just the heroine to see to it that no rescue comes for the doomed.

What the bird had needed was not someone with better powers, but someone who heard "Help!" as a call for help rather than interesting free information obtained through their nifty listen to animals power. (Or, since Flash did show up and show willing, what the bird needed was someone with the right attitude, and tough enough to beat down Wonder Woman. And there's not a lot of people that answer to that description.)

Wonder Woman is an odd character, because she's so political and so much about standing up boldly for her beliefs - yet at the same time she's so political in the other sense of being slippery. As Greg Rucka wrote her, she would always stand up boldly and be framed as being in the right - but then the scene would shift to keep secret the answer to the question "right about what?" Trying to figure out what she actually stood for was a lot like being an old Kremlinologist, teasing meanings out of where people stood in May Day parades.

And that seemed deliberate. Even though she was about telling the truth, she was never going to do so, because it was more important not to alienate any portion of her potential readership by taking one (and only one) side of a divisive issue. She acts, or doesn't act, on the basis of what seem to be secret beliefs that follow the market.

That's not the most reassuring and inspiring that a superheroine can be. I think Wonder Woman is the best there is. But I think you could design a superheroine who would be better than her, in the sense of being more a superheroine than she is.

(If it's not obvious - I'm not picking on characters like Wonder Woman and Superman because I think they're no good. I'm picking on them because I want an example of what I find less than ideal about even the very best superheroes - which means I can't use examples based on people like Ultimate Giant Man.

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

What images and concepts do you get? Personality wise' date=' morals wise and basic nature? Is just having powers enough or is there a certain mindset required in your opinion?[/quote']Mindset comes before powers. Showbiz (a good thing in itself) comes later.

 

Buddy: This is because I don't have powers, isn't it? Well, not every superhero has powers, you know. You can be super without them. I invented these.

[points to his rocket boots]

Buddy: I can fly. Can you fly?

Mr. Incredible: Fly home, Buddy. I work alone.

Bomb Voyage: [French] And your outfit is totally ridiculous!

 

There are superheroes without powers - but none with attitudes like Syndrome's.

 

Someone with Bob Parr's passions - and the ability to back them up - is a superhero. Whether Bob was bulletproof or an inventor or whatever was a minor issue. (Bob's inability to stand up to the law when it told him not to be a hero was a major issue.)

 

A reasonable test for a superhero - one I use when I'm looking at characters, including my own - is, if you were starring in a jihad video like Nick Berg or many others, and this character was aware of it and had the power to act - what would they do? Or to put in another way - if you had a signal watch and only time to call one hero before the Allah hu Akhbars finished and the carving began - who ya gonna call?

 

Mister Incredible is a top line superhero. Very few published characters, if any at all now, are his equal. It would take a great deal of authority - backed ultimately by law - to get him to hesitate till it was too late. He would burn and ache to help.

 

Most modern heroes or modernized heroes would at least be inclined to help, though on the whole they would not be very reliable.

 

A lot of highly respectable heroes don't seem eager to take on controversial cases. I would not pick one of them. (Superman would likely pay attention to someone else he could rescue without taking sides in a controversy. And that's legitimate - with his power there is always someone else for him to help. But you'd still die horribly.)

 

But Ultimate Captain America is solid choice, not easily deterred by political correctness. Or Christian Bale's Batman - he seems like the real thing (as comic book adaptation characters go). Therefore, those are superheroes.

 

A lot of published superheroes would be worth calling only if you couldn't think of anybody good. Daredevil might be contemplating his own insanities (again). Ultimate Thor's first thought might be whether you were worth anything politically, so that is so he could blackmail the American president into doubling the foreign aid budget (again). Comic (non-animated) Batman (Bat-god) might not care. So I would call these characters only marginal superheroes.

 

Though he is vastly more powerful than any of these except the Bat-god, Molecule Man would be a total waste of a signal watch call. So he's not a superhero.

 

If I come up with a character like Gladiatrix, who would guaranteed-from-God help all they could, but their motives would be extreme, even crazy, and in some ways reprehensible (like needing to be loved by an audience, even if an audience of one), I go with it. She may need some work, she may have a long dark journey of the soul to get where a real superheroine should be - but she's the real deal and on the path.

 

If I came up with a character who seems sympathetic, but when I mentally give them the jihad video test and they are willing to be respectable citizens and not get involved or they would think first of their own self-pitying mutant issues or whatever, I know that however well the powers add up and however cool the costume is, I don't have a superhero concept, and I have to start again from scratch.

 

Someone who can be given official government orders not to get involved - and will take them - is for me not a superhero at all. I've played a couple of those in games that required registered, salaried head-kickers. I did not like them at all, and I would cheerfully have seen the villains kill them. Their cool powers, costumes and so on meant nothing to me.

 

A hero fights for a cause, not a salary. And he or she will not be told "not today."

Re: The Champion Protocols (ie how to take down your character)

There's a hell of a lot wrong with a superbeing who can realistically be taken out by a sniper.

 

Namely... why hasn't it been done yet?

 

 

In short, if you're being realistic, then there should be no active superbeings who aren't basically immune to such tactics - because everyone else is dead.

Re: Hair Tricks?

Fantastic Four #41: Betrayed by Ben Grimm, story one in the third volume of Essential Fantastic Four, Medusa vs. Sandman:

Sandman: "You can't hold me this way sister! I'll change my body to sand, and ooze right out of your useless hair-grip!"

Medusa: "That is precisely what I expected you to do.. !"

Medusa: "Now, by simply whirling my hair about like a giant fan, I can scatter your particles all over the room!"

Medusa: "This is what makes Madame Medusa the most powerful member by far of the Frightful Four!"

Either she's boasting that what everybody thought was a mere multipower is in fact a hair power pool that lets her put points into whatever she thinks of at the time, or she thinks having her own high-powered fan is the business, or she's just boastful. Or some combination of the above.

In any case, you've got to have an area effect increased knockback air energy blast, or a telekinetic effect or something else that will do the same job, don't you?

Re: WWYCD: The Crossover from H E Double-hockey-stick

Man, I loved S&W. They lived to heckle.

 

That sounds beautiful, DB. I'm not normally much for PC humiliation, but occasionally it can make for fun roleplaying to put the more pretentious heroes in situations that let some of the air out of their stuffed shirts. And ultimately you can't resent being mauled by the Muppets; they do it with such style.

I think it works if you have at least one character in the group who gets that "eye of the tiger! It's the thrill of the fight, rising up to the challenge of our rival!"

Big Red: "I'm sexy, I'm cute, / I'm popular to boot."

The Toros Squad: "I'm bitchin', great hair, / The boys all love to stare, / I'm wanted, I'm hot, / I'm everything you're not..."

- Bring It On (2000)

Statler and Waldorf were built without points. They just heckled like crazy due to great gamemaster improvisation, the bystanders/audience reacted legitimately, and I played "Big Red" Gladiatrix's psychological limitations to the hilt. We all played it to the hilt.

Re: WWYCD: The Crossover from H E Double-hockey-stick

Here is the situation:

 

A master villain (along the lines of Doctor Destroyer: Your campaign's equivalent to him) was performing an experiment with his usual power source (technology, magic, genetics, what-have-you) and somehow, as a result of his experiement (this may or may not be accidental), a dimensional rift opened to a non-superheroic world that seems identical to a given television show (you choose).

 

And now, because of the things that happen on the show mixing in with your world, things are starting to get really weird, and if the show itself is freakin'-nuts, there is the potential of a great change, possibly an apocalypse.

 

With your character, you must determine the following:

 

1: What show did your world cross over with? (Rule: it can't be a show that prominently features a superheroic person, so no Charmed, no Smallville, no Teen Titans, etc. A sitcom, soap-opera, action show, or even some wild cartoon show like Animaniacs would be acceptable for this crossover plot. But the show is up to you.)

 

2: What sorts of things do you anticipate happening?

 

3: What Would Your Character Do?

The world crossed over with the Muppet Show.

Animal showed up and joined the team. When he turned out to be as tough as or tougher than anybody else on it, we should have known this was going to be trouble. Then his enemies - every other muppet - showed up. Every kind of bizarre disruption followed, and much tail-kicking.

The muppets had a genius for humiliating the more-Iron-Age-Than-Thou characters. Crazy Harry exploded our gun bunny. Power-pecking dancing flamingoes kicked our resident ninja around the park (literally). When the world seems to change and limelight is power, black jammies, a menacing squint and a breathy, sinister whisper don't cut it.

I don't even want to remember about the fish.

Football Announcer: "Our next defeat is scheduled for next Friday, 8 o'clock."

- Bring It On (2000)

Gladiatrix revelled in show biz taking over the world, and beat the muppets on the level where they sought supremacy: she was a bigger scene-stealer than they were.

Till Statler and Waldorf nailed her. Gladiatrix couldn't handle her act being mocked effectively. She had no sense of humor about the quality of her act, or the effort she put in to it, or the supreme importance of being loved and not laughed at by the crowd, and she had no ability to detach herself. She lost it, ignored the fight and went after the hecklers.

Missy: "Well, look on the bright side - It's only cheerleading!"

Torrance Shipman: "I am only cheerleading."

- Bring It On (2000)