Jagged

I am quasi-obsessed, after 35 years of playing and running Champions, with creating a sprawling multiversal setting to run and play games in.  I call it the "457".  The various universes, planes, cosmopolises, dimensions, realms, homelands, afterlife realms, etc are laid out as coordinate points on and inside a giant metaphysical sphere, with the "prime" universe at the center of it.  I haven't written up 457 different dimensions(yet! lol) but I have bounced around various ideas.  My inspirations are varied: Marvel's Exiles, the DC Multiverse, What If? comics, Planescape/Manual of the Planes, old Twilight Zone and Star Trek episodes, the Man in the High Castle/Wolfenstein, Champions in 3D and my own previous campaign settings.  While I work on it I figured I'd open a thread to discuss other folks' ideas for different dimensions/timelines, and to present my own dimensions as I write them up.  
One of the planes is definitely going to be Babylon, the City of Cities, as described in Mystic Hero/Ultimate Supermage.  It's a dimension that's basically one giant metropolis, containing an amalgam of every major city from fiction, real history etc.  Presumably some alien cities as well.  It's likely to be a major nexus point among the dimensions of the 457.  
 
 
 

I put this here just to document my own, similar obsession:
http://hero-id.co.uk/hotm/
 
Unfortunately it is yet to turn into a viable game ☹️

I don't believe that I've ever been so disappointed in a software product in all my years as I was when Champions Online came out and preserved virtually nothing of what made Champions / Fantasy Hero great.
 
They essentially built a completely new game engine and kept the Champions / HERO lore and tossed out the mechanics.  Seemed exactly the opposite of what they should have done. 
 
Keep the amazing game system and introduce new lore.

I think this is true to a degree and a negative reputation that hasn't been dealt with to another degree.
 
Because the system is so open ended it lends itself to unnecessary complexity.
 
With my current Saturday group I've been easing them into the rules one by one as their comfort grows.  For the early sessions we hand-waved END tracking and several other factors for the sake of simplicity.
 
D&D 5e which has absolutely exploded due to its streamlined changes AND hitting the free marketing jackpot with Critical Role switching to their system isn't THAT much simpler if the GM intends to match it.
HERO presents it's primary stats, previously figured stats and combat stats in one big block.  It's a wall of text and intimidating.
D&D has almost exactly the same number of things to track, but they're dispersed and packaged more neatly not really less in number.
 
HERO - STR,DEX,CON,INT,EGO,PRE
D&D -   STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHA
 
HERO - PD, ED, REC, END, STUN
D&D - AC, Hit Dice, Exhaustion Levels, Spell Slots, X per short rest, X per long rest
 
HERO - OCV, DCV, MOCV, MDCV
D&D - To Hit Bonus from Stats, Proficiency Bonus, Saving Throw 1, Saving Throw 2 - 6
 
Where I REALLY see players struggle is in building their own custom powers.  It's like playing D&D where the spell book is a math test.

Been following this thread for a while now. Nearly posted a few times. Wrote long posts that never got submitted because threads like this are why I left these boards for over a year and now I am back only really post in "Non-gaming" and "General roleplaying" forums. Still, here goes:
 
"Mechanically best" - no idea what that means and care even less.
 
From my point of view 6e changed loads of things in Champions that gave it its flavour; To solve problems I never experienced; Which when explained to me made me wonder if those games had a GM? Worst still, those problems were placed ahead of the real problems that Hero System suffered from, which was all about getting people to play the game.
 
If you spend any time in other gaming forums you will know that the "consensus" is that Hero is Complex, Hero is Slow, GURPS is better. Did we do anything to change that? We produced a big, enourmous, blue book. ? At a time when the market direction was for small and simple and quick and old skool. Great job!
 
Finally I think "The Story of COM" is very representative of where its all gone wrong imo. No new player ever had to ask what COM was. It was a dirt-cheap points sink. It provided 10 minutes of fun at the start of every campaign while we worked out who was the prettiest. Now we have "Striking Appearance" ?
 
I think we built a game that was perfect for a small group of people on this forum, which is unsellable to the general gaming public. Harsh, but I think true. At least we have some pretty covers again.
 

Been following this thread for a while now. Nearly posted a few times. Wrote long posts that never got submitted because threads like this are why I left these boards for over a year and now I am back only really post in "Non-gaming" and "General roleplaying" forums. Still, here goes:
 
"Mechanically best" - no idea what that means and care even less.
 
From my point of view 6e changed loads of things in Champions that gave it its flavour; To solve problems I never experienced; Which when explained to me made me wonder if those games had a GM? Worst still, those problems were placed ahead of the real problems that Hero System suffered from, which was all about getting people to play the game.
 
If you spend any time in other gaming forums you will know that the "consensus" is that Hero is Complex, Hero is Slow, GURPS is better. Did we do anything to change that? We produced a big, enourmous, blue book. ? At a time when the market direction was for small and simple and quick and old skool. Great job!
 
Finally I think "The Story of COM" is very representative of where its all gone wrong imo. No new player ever had to ask what COM was. It was a dirt-cheap points sink. It provided 10 minutes of fun at the start of every campaign while we worked out who was the prettiest. Now we have "Striking Appearance" ?
 
I think we built a game that was perfect for a small group of people on this forum, which is unsellable to the general gaming public. Harsh, but I think true. At least we have some pretty covers again.
 

Been following this thread for a while now. Nearly posted a few times. Wrote long posts that never got submitted because threads like this are why I left these boards for over a year and now I am back only really post in "Non-gaming" and "General roleplaying" forums. Still, here goes:
 
"Mechanically best" - no idea what that means and care even less.
 
From my point of view 6e changed loads of things in Champions that gave it its flavour; To solve problems I never experienced; Which when explained to me made me wonder if those games had a GM? Worst still, those problems were placed ahead of the real problems that Hero System suffered from, which was all about getting people to play the game.
 
If you spend any time in other gaming forums you will know that the "consensus" is that Hero is Complex, Hero is Slow, GURPS is better. Did we do anything to change that? We produced a big, enourmous, blue book. ? At a time when the market direction was for small and simple and quick and old skool. Great job!
 
Finally I think "The Story of COM" is very representative of where its all gone wrong imo. No new player ever had to ask what COM was. It was a dirt-cheap points sink. It provided 10 minutes of fun at the start of every campaign while we worked out who was the prettiest. Now we have "Striking Appearance" ?
 
I think we built a game that was perfect for a small group of people on this forum, which is unsellable to the general gaming public. Harsh, but I think true. At least we have some pretty covers again.
 

Been following this thread for a while now. Nearly posted a few times. Wrote long posts that never got submitted because threads like this are why I left these boards for over a year and now I am back only really post in "Non-gaming" and "General roleplaying" forums. Still, here goes:
 
"Mechanically best" - no idea what that means and care even less.
 
From my point of view 6e changed loads of things in Champions that gave it its flavour; To solve problems I never experienced; Which when explained to me made me wonder if those games had a GM? Worst still, those problems were placed ahead of the real problems that Hero System suffered from, which was all about getting people to play the game.
 
If you spend any time in other gaming forums you will know that the "consensus" is that Hero is Complex, Hero is Slow, GURPS is better. Did we do anything to change that? We produced a big, enourmous, blue book. ? At a time when the market direction was for small and simple and quick and old skool. Great job!
 
Finally I think "The Story of COM" is very representative of where its all gone wrong imo. No new player ever had to ask what COM was. It was a dirt-cheap points sink. It provided 10 minutes of fun at the start of every campaign while we worked out who was the prettiest. Now we have "Striking Appearance" ?
 
I think we built a game that was perfect for a small group of people on this forum, which is unsellable to the general gaming public. Harsh, but I think true. At least we have some pretty covers again.
 

Been following this thread for a while now. Nearly posted a few times. Wrote long posts that never got submitted because threads like this are why I left these boards for over a year and now I am back only really post in "Non-gaming" and "General roleplaying" forums. Still, here goes:
 
"Mechanically best" - no idea what that means and care even less.
 
From my point of view 6e changed loads of things in Champions that gave it its flavour; To solve problems I never experienced; Which when explained to me made me wonder if those games had a GM? Worst still, those problems were placed ahead of the real problems that Hero System suffered from, which was all about getting people to play the game.
 
If you spend any time in other gaming forums you will know that the "consensus" is that Hero is Complex, Hero is Slow, GURPS is better. Did we do anything to change that? We produced a big, enourmous, blue book. ? At a time when the market direction was for small and simple and quick and old skool. Great job!
 
Finally I think "The Story of COM" is very representative of where its all gone wrong imo. No new player ever had to ask what COM was. It was a dirt-cheap points sink. It provided 10 minutes of fun at the start of every campaign while we worked out who was the prettiest. Now we have "Striking Appearance" ?
 
I think we built a game that was perfect for a small group of people on this forum, which is unsellable to the general gaming public. Harsh, but I think true. At least we have some pretty covers again.
 

Been following this thread for a while now. Nearly posted a few times. Wrote long posts that never got submitted because threads like this are why I left these boards for over a year and now I am back only really post in "Non-gaming" and "General roleplaying" forums. Still, here goes:
 
"Mechanically best" - no idea what that means and care even less.
 
From my point of view 6e changed loads of things in Champions that gave it its flavour; To solve problems I never experienced; Which when explained to me made me wonder if those games had a GM? Worst still, those problems were placed ahead of the real problems that Hero System suffered from, which was all about getting people to play the game.
 
If you spend any time in other gaming forums you will know that the "consensus" is that Hero is Complex, Hero is Slow, GURPS is better. Did we do anything to change that? We produced a big, enourmous, blue book. ? At a time when the market direction was for small and simple and quick and old skool. Great job!
 
Finally I think "The Story of COM" is very representative of where its all gone wrong imo. No new player ever had to ask what COM was. It was a dirt-cheap points sink. It provided 10 minutes of fun at the start of every campaign while we worked out who was the prettiest. Now we have "Striking Appearance" ?
 
I think we built a game that was perfect for a small group of people on this forum, which is unsellable to the general gaming public. Harsh, but I think true. At least we have some pretty covers again.
 

Well, sure, that's why I was curious for character concepts that are enabled by 6e (neater and cleaner). You've given me a couple. Thanks again for that.
 
6e does seem the logical endpoint of things. Divorcing CV from Dex and so on. So it's certainly more mechanically detailed by default in character creation.
I'm just not sure that's "best" "mechanically". It's certainly more fiddly. 
 
Like you I'd like to know what Killer Shrike means by that. Then I can try to change his mind. ;D
 
I mean if the character doesn't pay for the skill (lockpicking, let's say) then they might not even be able to attempt it, depending on the GM. 
And...who says he has to have a high Dex to be good at fighting? Buy him some combat levels to represent his skill in fighting. 
 
Ben Grimm is a terrible example for exactly that reason. Football star, veteran, test pilot. He's got excellent reflexes and he's highly trained in various ways. 
But him aside, my point isn't that 6e doesn't allow finer granularity by default for these edge cases, it's that I think I can do all that in 4th or 5th. Accomplish the same effect. So I can get to playing. 
 
If Shrike feels having more granularity by default is mechanically better (and I think that's a very reasonable position) then 6e is probably superior.
But if "best"\"better" means generally being able to easily replicate any weird corner case a PC can throw at you then...4th is fine too. 
 
As far as historical norms in published products and average games that I haven't played in regarding Speed scores....I guess I'm in favor of limiting them? 
 
It's no problem for me if Thing, Wolverine, Cyclops, Punisher, and Tony Stark are all Dex 12. And speed 3. And are some of the greatest fighters in the world because they have spent XP on tons of levels. 
 
Disad for Rogues to keep their CV down? 5pts for every -1 OCV penalty when they aren't in favorable conditions. 
"Gun shy" or "Prefers to attack from the rear" or "Not a Fighter". 
 
Anyway.
 
Yah, sure, if better balanced point spends, for some kinda arbitrary meta-rules-based character concepts, is "better", then I'd say that's a strong case for 6e being best.
For sure. That kinda of super detailed edge case stuff does seem better suited to 6e. 
 
I'm more about: I don't know if any of that really benefits playing the game. So "best" seems uncertain. 
 
I'm more interested in a rules system that I can fairly quickly create highly customized characters with and then get to gaming. While gaming it's nice to have a solid framework for skills, combats, and such in addition to the skeleton of the system that drives XP based progressions. 
 
4th worked for me for that, 5th does now (and I'd be strongly inclined to switch back to 4e Shapeshift if it ever comes up from a player in a game), it all seems good.
 
6th seems more detailed. But I'm not sure that's better.
Neater and cleaner to create some of the stat relations you're talking about. Point breaks re: Figured look good too.
 
But "best"? 
 
For what value of "best" and "mechanically"?
 
 
 
 
 
 

I jokingly answered earlier in the thread, but now I'll answer for real.  This is going to come across as kind of rude.  Sorry.  No offense meant to anybody here.
 
 
 
6th edition is inferior because it is designed by a committee, based upon a false promise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying system.  It's the product of endless tinkering without an achievable goal or a clear direction.  I'll try to flesh out what I mean by all that, but some of it is conceptual and may be rather hard to explain.
 
Everything up to 4th edition was led by the original designers, and there's a logic to how everything was costed.  Power X is about twice as good as Power Y, so it should cost twice as much.  There's a basic concept of balance built into it from the very beginning.  All the powers and characteristics are roughly scaled with one another.  It's not perfectly executed, but it's pretty close.  Moreover, there was a philosophy to how it was balanced.  They valued certain abilities more than others, and so those were costed higher.  These ideas were internally consistent with each other.  Combat abilities are more valuable than noncombat abilities.  Flexible powers are more valuable than those that are more limited.  Therefore these things cost more points.  If you built characters as they intended, and played the game as they intended, it had a wonderful balance.  4th edition Champions was almost perfect.  And again, it was true to its philosophy.
 
Now with a system as complex as Champions, you'll never get a perfect balance.  There are just too many moving bits and pieces, and a powergamer will find the most efficient builds possible, while a person who has never played before will waste points on things that may never come up.  That is unavoidable.  But later editions didn't understand that.  5th edition, 5th edition revised, 6th edition, Champions Complete, all of them have tried to tweak the system to achieve some perfect balance that just isn't possible.  And the biggest problem is, these changes didn't follow the original pricing structure of the system.  The changes were made by people with a different philosophy of how the system should work.  And those changes don't quite mesh with the underlying system.
 
As an example, let's go to 5th edition, written by Steve Long (somewhat prophetically named when you see the size of his manuscripts).  He had his own ideas about how the Hero System should work, and he modified it.  Adders became much more common.  The pricing structure for some powers was changed, but not for others.  And while some of these changes were arguably good, others were not so great.  It was clear that he was seeing the system in a different way from the original authors, but it was a modification of their system and not one built from the ground up with his own ideas.  Long's philosophy appeared to be based around trying to make everything fit around a certain core set of game mechanics.  Instant Change was removed as a Talent and modified to be a "My clothes only" Transform.  Shapeshift was turned into a sense-affecting power.  But one of the most glaring examples here is Damage Shield.  In 4th edition, Damage Shield was a +1/2 advantage you applied to a power.  If anybody touched you, or if you touched anybody, they were hit with that power.  When 5th edition hit, it suddenly required you to purchase the advantage Continuous (+1).  But, you didn't actually get the benefit that Continuous granted, which is that somebody hit with a Continuous power will be affected by it every single phase.  No, you had to pay a +1 advantage tax because now you've got to change your Energy Blast to a Constant power before you can apply Damage Shield.
 
Why is this a problem?  Because it's a different game philosophy stacked on top of the previous one.  While both follow the idea of "you get what you pay for", 4th edition was more focused on comparative effectiveness, whereas 5th added costs with the idea of making powers conform to a certain format.  A 10D6 Energy Blast with Damage Shield in 4th edition was 75 points.  That's the same as a 15D6 Energy Blast.  Quite expensive, but you got the benefit that you could hurt your enemy when it wasn't your phase, without an attack roll, depending on what they did.  Still might be too expensive though.  In 5th edition, you had to buy it Continuous first.  So now that power became 125 points, the same as a Twenty-five D6 Energy Blast.  No power-gamer in the world would choose a 10D6 Damage Shield over a 25D6 EB.  The two aren't remotely comparable.  There are other problems as well.  The cost of Major Transform had previously been based upon the cost of RKA, the logic being if you can kill them, you might as well be able to turn them into a frog.  5th ed wisely dropped having Cumulative be a +1/2 advantage (RKA is cumulative by default), but it added requirements that you had to pay more to affect different types of targets.  Instead of "turn target into frog" the standard Transform became "turn human into frog".  To affect any target, you had to buy another advantage. 
 
In this way, the cost structure of 5th edition became less consistent, more concerned with form than function.  Abuse wasn't eliminated at all, the nature of the abuse just changed.
 
I wasn't active on the boards during the time that they were soliciting suggestions for 6th edition.  I think I had an account here but I had wandered off.  But as I understand it there was a lot of discussion about what changes people wanted to see made.  And while I like most of you guys just fine, good lord do I disagree with a lot of you over how the game system should work.  I see questions on the Hero System Discussion page, and many of the suggestions are overly complex and extremely point inefficient.  But some people feel like they've got to dot those "i"s and cross those "t"s.  Again I wasn't involved in any of the discussions, but when I flip through the 6th edition book, I'm reminded of the adage "too many cooks spoil the broth".  6th compounds some of the mistakes of 5th edition and doesn't look back.

I think, on balance, my view is that, mechanically, Hero has not changed since it was first edition Champions.  It has a simple but effective mechanic that it has stuck to, despite a number of people pointing out that rolling high for good makes more sense.
 
What has changed is the way the powers are presented, and whether that is better or not is a matter of debate.  Certainly some of the powers are more logically presented but I have a problem with some of the maths (mainly how you go about calculation a modifier value - there seems to be some inconsistency and unfairness) and the detail.
 
By 'detail' I mean that, for example, Shapeshift is now a sensory power.  That sort of makes sense, I suppose, but it is confusing for new players and some old players too: actually building something that can change shape, as most people would understand the concept, is not straightforward.
 
Everything takes a lot longer to actually read, understand and build now.  1eChampions was a slim volume and you could still do (almost) everything that you can do with 6e, given a bit of imagination and a following wind.  I'm pretty sure there are bits of 6e I've never actually read.
 
If we are referring to 'build mechanics' therefore, well, it's Betamax vs VHS: Betamax may be technically better, but VHS is the one that actually gets used.  Got used.  Maybe I should have gone with DVD and BlueRay, but even that is showing my age.  How about Apple abandoning the Lightning Connector for USB C?  6e is definitely the best iteration in some respects, but not when it comes to excitement and fun, which is what the mechanics should be aimed at achieving.  The last time I really felt that was when I got my hands on 4th edition Champions, the Big Blue Book.
 
In summary, the actual game mechanics have never really changed - what we appear to be arguing about is the build mechanics.
 
The build mechanics have improved in some areas, not so much in others.  They have certainly become more complicated, which can be a barrier to entry.  I daresay if I went back to 4th edition now it would seem more limited, so in that way, 6e is better, but then I'm an addict and I'd get 7e if it came in 4x500page lever arch files.  I don't think all the changes have been for the better and I don't think all the things that could do with changing have been.  6e is (build) mechanically different.  I think I'll leave it there.

Well if you think that I am a troll rather than a long standing supporter for the game and those who play it, and that I am trolling rather than asking people who don't like 6e to itemize the problems they have with the ruleset that cause them to express a general dislike for it at one end of the spectrum up to using terms like "detest" at that other end of the spectrum, then you misunderstand me.

I'm not attempting to troll you (or anyone else) Christopher. I've been away from these board for a while, and coming back to it I notice a trend with the posters currently active where a noticeable subgroup seem to hold 6e in poor regard. As the opening post stipulates, I want to start a friendly forum for reasonable discussion for people to put forth their talking points for why some other version of the rules is a better version of the rules.
 
You are of course free to not participate in the discussion if you don't want to, but popping in to participate by accusing me of trolling seems counterproductive on the one hand or perhaps some might say a bit trollish in and of itself on the other. Name calling has a tendency to propagate, I suppose. But if you have an opinion about why 6e is not the best mechanical version of the rules, I would like to hear it if you would take the time to type it out.

"change my mind" is just "convince me" with different words. And "convince me" is a trolling technique. A variant of the "shifting goalpost" approach, wich I define as "undefined goalpost".
 
Intersting point. Never thought about that :D

The thing is that Damage Reduction is ideal for Solo Boss Combatants in Hero, Giant monster or not.
 
On the one hand it only affects damage past defenses, so you leave those mediocore. That way everyone in the team can chip in to bring the enemy down.
On the other hand, it affects the check if you are "Stunned". Wich makes it a ton less likely that the Villain is getting stunned. And getting stunned is a huge issue if you are literally the only character on your side.
And it is also easily "slapped onto" any existing villain, if you decide Ogre should be buffed by the plot to become the Solo Villain for today.
 
Actually "Kaiju" are a perfect example of enemies that:
Have to fight a whole superhero team on their own Do not have minions For me DR is just a mechanic like everything else. You already made half the connections by giving the Solo Villains called "Kaiju" DR. Now you just need to generalize it for all Solo Villains (that actually act alone in this adventure)

A new Daredevil show will be a mistake, because it will not be anywhere near as good. Guaranteed. 
 

For me it has always been about "ease of use".
 
As a GM (and as a player) there is simply so much more easy to use source material for fantasy than there is for supers. This has become more true over time (or rather as I get less and less free time). I also use Maptool (a virtual table top application) to game and although it isn't a necessity, it does make me want to build all the maps before I start a session. Which frequently leads to the problem that even with neophyte Super Heroes they usually have the ability to travel large distances and go places you haven't considered. *sigh*
 
If I want a tavern, blacksmith, alchemist's lair or virtually any fantasy environment I can think of, chances are you can google a high quality map for it. Attempting the same for a modern environment turns up far fewer results. All of which eats into my most limited resource: "Time".
 

So, how do you feel about the term pseudo-rapist to describe cat-callers or pseudo-murderers to describe people who sell guns?  Because I know people on the left who would be totally down with those terminologies.
 
Using the pseudo- at the front or -like at the back of some really heinous word such as terrorist, rapist, murderer or pedophile is a tactic of demonization.  It is saying that this group that you dislike is almost that other horrible group.  The idea being that we should punish our newly labeled pseudo-terrorist/pseudo-murderers/pseudo-rapist almost like we punish actual terrorist, murders and rapist despite their not having terrorized murdered or raped.  When activist use this tactic they are trying to be inflammatory.  When government this tactic they are usually getting ready to do some sort of crack down.  Both groups are trying to bend or break the truth in order to achieve an end.
 
What I am saying is Greenpeace either is a terrorist organization or they are not.  If they are not, then it is inappropriate to try to paint them as being almost terrorist  because the word terrorist is much to loaded to use in that fashion.

Lord no!
 
This thread is annoying.  
 
 
 
 
 
I believe the best comment I've ever heard on the loudness problem is (not mine, but I have no idea to whom it should be attributed):
 
"Some people seem to have learned their "inside" voices _inside_ a helicopter filled with running chainsaws!"
 

 
 

For me it has always been about "ease of use".
 
As a GM (and as a player) there is simply so much more easy to use source material for fantasy than there is for supers. This has become more true over time (or rather as I get less and less free time). I also use Maptool (a virtual table top application) to game and although it isn't a necessity, it does make me want to build all the maps before I start a session. Which frequently leads to the problem that even with neophyte Super Heroes they usually have the ability to travel large distances and go places you haven't considered. *sigh*
 
If I want a tavern, blacksmith, alchemist's lair or virtually any fantasy environment I can think of, chances are you can google a high quality map for it. Attempting the same for a modern environment turns up far fewer results. All of which eats into my most limited resource: "Time".
 

For me it has always been about "ease of use".
 
As a GM (and as a player) there is simply so much more easy to use source material for fantasy than there is for supers. This has become more true over time (or rather as I get less and less free time). I also use Maptool (a virtual table top application) to game and although it isn't a necessity, it does make me want to build all the maps before I start a session. Which frequently leads to the problem that even with neophyte Super Heroes they usually have the ability to travel large distances and go places you haven't considered. *sigh*
 
If I want a tavern, blacksmith, alchemist's lair or virtually any fantasy environment I can think of, chances are you can google a high quality map for it. Attempting the same for a modern environment turns up far fewer results. All of which eats into my most limited resource: "Time".
 

Just rewatched The Shadow. I may be in the minority, but I really liked Baldwin's Shadow, and the characters in it. John Lone was excellent as the over the top Shiwan Khan, Tim Curry made a great toady. Loved the representation of how he "Knows" whats going on, with informants all over the city feeding him information. Really wish had been popular enough to do more. Now, given he does tv, wish they would do a series. I liked that they didn't make him uber powerful.

That may be so, but Thanos is also plainly sadistic. He relishes causing pain and suffering. He mistakes torture for parental love. That and his obsessive messianic grandiosity would seem to push him into the psychopath category. It's debatable whether his "utilitarianism" led to the growth of his personality disorder, or is at root a rationalization of it.

Agree. Terrence Howard is a more convincing Rhodey.