archer

Well, if there was any evidence that the administration was "aggressively protecting the vulnerable" then maybe that would be a real strategy, even if I disagreed with it.
 
But the administration has put out a mandate that nursing homes have to test, without giving them money or testing kits. They haven't provided PPE sufficient for nursing homes or VA hospitals, much less more broadly.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US includes those who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old...according to the government.
 
I have asthma, a heart condition, diabetes, and am old. The government knows all of that because it is my healthcare insurance provider and I take medicine for all of that and it's on my medical information from my doctor which he has to send to them.
 
The government hasn't done a damned thing to try to protect me. Or even checked in on me to see if I'm protecting myself.
 
Zip, nada, nothing.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US (who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old) are more than 100 million people (roughly a third of the population). To protect that number of people, there would have to be a massive governmental effort of some sort...and there isn't one.

Isn't that just a re-skinning of Mark Zuckerberg?  

Well, if there was any evidence that the administration was "aggressively protecting the vulnerable" then maybe that would be a real strategy, even if I disagreed with it.
 
But the administration has put out a mandate that nursing homes have to test, without giving them money or testing kits. They haven't provided PPE sufficient for nursing homes or VA hospitals, much less more broadly.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US includes those who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old...according to the government.
 
I have asthma, a heart condition, diabetes, and am old. The government knows all of that because it is my healthcare insurance provider and I take medicine for all of that and it's on my medical information from my doctor which he has to send to them.
 
The government hasn't done a damned thing to try to protect me. Or even checked in on me to see if I'm protecting myself.
 
Zip, nada, nothing.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US (who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old) are more than 100 million people (roughly a third of the population). To protect that number of people, there would have to be a massive governmental effort of some sort...and there isn't one.

Well, if there was any evidence that the administration was "aggressively protecting the vulnerable" then maybe that would be a real strategy, even if I disagreed with it.
 
But the administration has put out a mandate that nursing homes have to test, without giving them money or testing kits. They haven't provided PPE sufficient for nursing homes or VA hospitals, much less more broadly.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US includes those who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old...according to the government.
 
I have asthma, a heart condition, diabetes, and am old. The government knows all of that because it is my healthcare insurance provider and I take medicine for all of that and it's on my medical information from my doctor which he has to send to them.
 
The government hasn't done a damned thing to try to protect me. Or even checked in on me to see if I'm protecting myself.
 
Zip, nada, nothing.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US (who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old) are more than 100 million people (roughly a third of the population). To protect that number of people, there would have to be a massive governmental effort of some sort...and there isn't one.

OMG, it's jumped species!

Well, if there was any evidence that the administration was "aggressively protecting the vulnerable" then maybe that would be a real strategy, even if I disagreed with it.
 
But the administration has put out a mandate that nursing homes have to test, without giving them money or testing kits. They haven't provided PPE sufficient for nursing homes or VA hospitals, much less more broadly.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US includes those who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old...according to the government.
 
I have asthma, a heart condition, diabetes, and am old. The government knows all of that because it is my healthcare insurance provider and I take medicine for all of that and it's on my medical information from my doctor which he has to send to them.
 
The government hasn't done a damned thing to try to protect me. Or even checked in on me to see if I'm protecting myself.
 
Zip, nada, nothing.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US (who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old) are more than 100 million people (roughly a third of the population). To protect that number of people, there would have to be a massive governmental effort of some sort...and there isn't one.

Remember when the Republicans were a political party rather than a personality cult?

OMG, it's jumped species!

OMG, it's jumped species!

OMG, it's jumped species!

OMG, it's jumped species!

Well, if there was any evidence that the administration was "aggressively protecting the vulnerable" then maybe that would be a real strategy, even if I disagreed with it.
 
But the administration has put out a mandate that nursing homes have to test, without giving them money or testing kits. They haven't provided PPE sufficient for nursing homes or VA hospitals, much less more broadly.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US includes those who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old...according to the government.
 
I have asthma, a heart condition, diabetes, and am old. The government knows all of that because it is my healthcare insurance provider and I take medicine for all of that and it's on my medical information from my doctor which he has to send to them.
 
The government hasn't done a damned thing to try to protect me. Or even checked in on me to see if I'm protecting myself.
 
Zip, nada, nothing.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US (who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old) are more than 100 million people (roughly a third of the population). To protect that number of people, there would have to be a massive governmental effort of some sort...and there isn't one.

Remember when the Republicans were a political party rather than a personality cult?

Well, if there was any evidence that the administration was "aggressively protecting the vulnerable" then maybe that would be a real strategy, even if I disagreed with it.
 
But the administration has put out a mandate that nursing homes have to test, without giving them money or testing kits. They haven't provided PPE sufficient for nursing homes or VA hospitals, much less more broadly.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US includes those who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old...according to the government.
 
I have asthma, a heart condition, diabetes, and am old. The government knows all of that because it is my healthcare insurance provider and I take medicine for all of that and it's on my medical information from my doctor which he has to send to them.
 
The government hasn't done a damned thing to try to protect me. Or even checked in on me to see if I'm protecting myself.
 
Zip, nada, nothing.
 
The "vulnerable" in the US (who have heart conditions, asthma, other lung problems, diabetes, and who are old) are more than 100 million people (roughly a third of the population). To protect that number of people, there would have to be a massive governmental effort of some sort...and there isn't one.

After viewing the disappointing post-debate polls, Trump asked Kushner how to do better in the following debate.
 
Jared said, "Be positive, spread your positivity, and after all is said and done, try to come across as a patient person"

After viewing the disappointing post-debate polls, Trump asked Kushner how to do better in the following debate.
 
Jared said, "Be positive, spread your positivity, and after all is said and done, try to come across as a patient person"

For my chemistry homework, I was supposed to write a thousand words on acid.
 
I tried, but my pen turned into a rainbow-colored giraffe and then the desk melted.

I highly recommend that you see more episodes of that series to help you understand it better.  
 
Thanks for making my day.

After viewing the disappointing post-debate polls, Trump asked Kushner how to do better in the following debate.
 
Jared said, "Be positive, spread your positivity, and after all is said and done, try to come across as a patient person"

I hope Chris Christie pulls through. I hear he was in the running to be cast as Bouncing Boy in DC's Legion of Superheroes movie.

Definitely Black Canary. Costume from the era of Justice League International #8 (1987)
 
https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Justice_League_International_Vol_1_8

I'm not sure that I completely understand what you're going for here.
 
1) You're allowing the people, who are already magic-users, to buy these powers which generally have severe limitations.
 
2) The powers are tied to how the player is expecting to roleplay the character? I think? So what happens if the character doesn't roleplay the character like that? Does he keep the power? Lose the power? Lose the power plus get refunded the points he paid for it? I'm not quite sure I understand how you visualize this working.
 
Anyway, supposing you have magic-users who buy these powers with severe limitations which are tied (in some manner) to the way they're roleplaying.
 
Some of the powers are very, very small...which would be a major concern of mine if I were a player. I might not know exactly what I'm going to do with a character when I'm first starting out with it and expect that I'll grow into a pattern of behavior based on events in the campaign. I wouldn't want to lock myself into a type of behavior in exchange for a very, very small power that I have to pay for anyway.
 
(And how does the +3 PRE for the Kind hero work? I pay 3 points to get 3 points worth of characteristics then have to lock myself into roleplaying a certain way? And I suppose the characteristic bonuses would allow characters to go over the characteristic maximum? Or not?)
 
I suppose the powers are persistent and don't count against any "maximum number of spells you can have active" cap but still I wouldn't be very attracted to that in the form you've proposed here. (But I'll admit to being highly allergic to anything which smells like D&D alignment railroads so I might not be the typical player.) 
 
Now for specific tweaks,
 
Refined hero: +1 ocv skill level vs worthy enemies. Worthy here being enemies that are more powerful and have more CV than the hero. "More powerful" is a GM judgement call that I'd be leery of. But if I were playing a magic-user with AoE spells so that I could have a very low CV, I'd love this one. More cheese, hands down.
 
Pure hero: plus 3 power defense vs evil magic. Even with magic being fairly common, power defense doesn't come into play very often. Very situational to meet an opponent which has an ability which interacts with power defense and even then, there's no guarantee that the Pure hero would be the target. I'd think something which would kick in at least every other session would be needed in order to keep the player from thinking he made a mistake picking this.
 
Kind hero: +3 presence. Maybe useful if you want to go over CHA maxima? If you aren't, not sure why you'd pick this immediately rather than waiting until you have 3 points to buy up PRE.
 
Logical hero: +1 dcv skill level vs monsters and weird creatures. Where others might panic or be stunned the logical hero just analyze the situation and does whats necessary...you make the logical hero sound like he should have PRE defense instead. But the DCV would probably be more useful.
 
Loyal hero: I am thinking +5 ego if their friends are in danger and maybe even +3 in con only to avoid getting stunned as well...getting 5 EGO which won't be useful often or that plus 3 CON which would be useful literally all the time. But eight active points of benefits when other hero powers get only three....
 
Balanced hero: This interesting and rare hero could get +1 to all skills as they are careful and thoughtful about what they do. This is a hell of a big benefit compared to many other powers. Any character who is a skill-monster would pick this one. Maybe interesting but this hero isn't going to be rare (unless your whole campaign is a slugfest which doesn't use skills).
 
 
All of the archetypes are put forward as "heroes". I think you might think about putting the ones who aren't blatantly heroes forward as "archetype" or "character" instead of "hero". I don't particularly want my GM trying to lock me into the role of "hero". And when I can afford to be picky about GM's, I'd be leery of joining a campaign which presented me with a choice of what kind of "hero" I'd like to be when I'm not even sure yet how heroic I want my character to be.
 
I can understand a GM not wanting to run a campaign for villains. But at the same time, there are bards, thieves, card sharps, and a whole assortment of other characters who don't particularly think of themselves as heroes...even if they end up playing the hero more often than they'd strictly like. 
 
It just seems to send a wonky message to players who are thinking they want to be the thieving, killing, mercenary Conan or a Bret Maverick.
 
I'm half asleep and rambling. Hope this made some sense and wasn't offensive.

I'm rambling again and very sleepy. I wanted to take a crack at giving a further explanation or a condensed explanation of some of these archetypes while it is on my mind. At least what I'm getting from the explanation.
 
For Refined hero:
 
Teaching/ethical - has standards, wants to help people, but also wants the people around him to learn (either from his examples or from his teachings).
 
 
The good guy who sees himself as a hero. Not given to deep thoughts or reflection, just does what's "right" according to his instincts at the moment.
 
 
Empathetic. Naturally shows mercy, generosity and compassion. Genuinely wants to understand others as well as help others.
 
 
The thinking man's hero. He thinks deep thoughts and sometimes gets lost in his own mind. But he deeply believes in the philosophy and ethics he has chosen to follow, even if his ethic might seem odd to others (Shoot the hostage??!!). Very sure of himself in all circumstances because the surrounding circumstances never change who he is in his core. 
 
 
Loyalty is everything. That loyalty might come through love, maybe through friendship, or from a teach/student relationship. But whoever has his loyalty has that loyalty to a very profound level. Will go to extremes to help those who have his loyalty. Very deeply wants the people to return that loyalty and become better people themselves through knowing him.
 
 
Interested in justice rather than law. Tends to take the long view. Believes in the goodness of people. Believes that people can be redeemed when shown the error of their ways.
 
 

Some of it's quite interesting. Thank you.
 
More and more it seems his Secret Service guys dislike Trump. Good thing for him, they're professionals

I sign up for emails from every campaign because I used to do political commentary (many times they send out messages to followers which they won't verbalize in public). But I'll admit that the Republican party under Trump has been more dense than any I've ever seen.
 
They called me to ask if I'd be willing to work from my own home for a Trump phone bank. I told the person, "Sure I will. I'd be willing to do almost anything to defeat Trump. What do I need to do to get started and get access to those phone numbers?"
 
This was like the fifth time that they'd contacted me to ask me to work for the campaign in some fashion but apparently nothing I'd said up to that point had gotten through to them.
 
Oddly enough, I haven't gotten a phone call from them since. Plenty of mail but no phone calls.