JMcL63

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll I suppose they have. But I suspect that this doesn't take centre stage in quite the way that it does in The Authority, even if, for the sake of being a comic, The Authority can no more follow that logic through to the post-holocaust wasteland than could any other superhero comic. Oh, and btw, for me this debate is not about not liking classic 4-colour comics. It's rather about challenging the notion (sillier, to my mind, than 4-colour comics) that only 4-colour characters are true superheroes, and that because they don't kill. It seems that I haven't made that clear already. I think it's already way too late for that nexus, but I think we're doing a fairly good job of keeping The Authority comments focussed on issues arising from the debate.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Good point zornwil. This is another of the things that I think Ellis set out consciously to address in The Authority, given the scale of property damage that occurs in that comic. And too the fact that the Authority regularly assist in the cleanup and rescue operations that follow their battles. Your point also tends, to my mind at least, to undermine the basic 4-colour morality at source. In an odd way, I feel that this is a sort of mirror image of how 4-colour morality related to the world as a whole: just as 4-colour comics existed in a peculiar world of their own, whose underlying premise was to ignore the real world, so too were the consequences of superpowered conflict ignored in that world. That is to say: no messy dead civilians to clutter up the squeaky clean morality of the costumed do-gooders.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll As I noted in an earlier post, I too considered giving major real world politicians walk-on parts as NPC's in my early games. It's certainly something I will do in the future. I just have to figure out where they fit.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll The Authority are probably more powerful than most superhero teams I'd say. You're absolutely correct Mags. I was just responding to your remark about street level characters by noting that the Authority raises the moral issues commonly associated with street-level/vigilante-type settings on a much higher power level, so that the issues commonly regarded as appropriate to those were quite relevant here (something you seemed to me to be taking issue with). As for the "concept of the genre", well that's precisely the point at issue. Well, my favourite superhero is a grim and gritty type who's involved in the war against ultimate evil. He regularly encounters supernatural beasties, daemons, Cthuloid nasties, hordes of ninja goons working for an evil Oriental tong, and so on. He's also encountered some more conventional 4-colour supervillains, but that was before the GM really got into his stride and started to enjoy the more horror-oriented stories. As a renegade ninja, this guy has killed certainly. In fact I can still remember his first kill. I was panicked because his ninja-goon opponents had weapons, so he used his own sword on them and they died. I was shocked. This was when I decided that he would only use his sword when he really needed to, eg. against heavily armoured opponents who could shrug off his fists. And it's not as if his fists are harmless. Me and the GM were sitting in the pub one night many years ago discussing the character. We crunched some numbers and realised that an average martial punch from this guy did some 50% or more BOD to your average goon, meaning that they were all hospitalised and perhaps crippled for life. Did I decide that he should pull his punches? Not a bit of it. Both myself and the GM decided that this was what the character was like. As an ubermensch without armour, and as a trained and experienced ninja warrior, the very idea of pulling his punches in a combat zone was anathema. He wants to make sure that the people he hits don't get up. All this might sound a bit grim, vigilantish even. But this guy is a superhero, my superhero. I've never had any problems over him with GM's or other players. Killing is just something that he sometimes has to do in the unexpectedly harsh reality he found himself in when he decided that he wanted to be a good guy. Again, you're defining superhero as if the 4-colour definition is absolute and definitive. Surely you have to accept that this is no longer the case, that the genre has broadened beyond that? That said, you are right about the 'heartless' bit. But is Wolverine really heartless? I never really saw him as that. More like efficient and hardened. My character certainly isn't heartless, even though he is certainly not the kind to suffer angst if he has to kill his enemies to prevail. He regards himself as a soldier in a war that is bigger than the world he lives in, a soldier who is fighting the good fight moreover. He puts his life on the line to defend a whole bunch of people who, if they even knew he existed, would probably regard him as a psychopathic killer, or worse. And he does this without fanfare or reward. Is this not an adequate definition of a hero? I think it is.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Erm, I have to say that the Authority aspect of the debate raises pretty much the same issues about power, violence, etc, and they aren't street level. Oh, and don't you think that the exchanges have calmed down a little and are now a bit more like an actual debate? Hmm?

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Hear hear! Well said that man! PS. Obviously my attempt to prevent this becoming an 'Authority good or bad' thread failed miserably. Oh well, I'll just have to kill you all now I guess...

Re: Code VS Killing Poll An interesting point nexus. Well first off, to amplify what I said above, I would suggest that the writers of The Authority are consciously playing off the term 'collateral damage'. By setting up heroes who actually are trying to change the world for the better, albeit in a form that causes collateral damage on a scale compatible with the levels of power involved in the battles the Authority fight, I think that these writers are trying to make a point about real world governments who preside over similar scales of carnage, wring their hands, cry crocodile tears, and so on, but actually do nothing to stop these problems if they aren't actually complicit in them. In other words, we are dealing with an artistic conception expressing a definite viewpoint here. If you like the viewpoint and buy into the artistic conceit, then the Authority are heroes; if you don't, then they are crypto-fascist psycopaths. Another aspect of the matter is largely historical I suggest. The Punisher appeared when 4-colour still largely ruled unchallenged. So at the time his schtick was that he was a vigilante. This IIRC- I only read a few Punisher stories) meant more than just that he went out and picked on criminals. His raison d'etre was that the law was an ass, wasn't it? He believed that he has a mission to use violence to do the job that the law couldn't, yes? I suppose you could say that a big difference between him and the Authority is that the Authority want to change the social, legal and political structure per se (though I think I am reading a bit between the lines here), while he just wants to mete out rough justice to those who the law can't touch. A classic vigilante in other words. If a character like the Punisher was to be created today (I mean, assuming that such a character hadn't already been done to death, but assuming the current post-4-colour trends), then I suspect he might be presented and perceived quite differently. He was a victim of his circumstances in terms of his perception in other words. So I guess I'd have to say that the Punisher is a vigilante because he falls within the classic definition of one; the Authority aren't vigilantes because they don't. Whether that makes one better than the other is a different matter though, one which is as much a matter of personal taste as anything else IMO. -EDIT- PS. I've just noticed that nexus was talking about the Punisher being a "costumed serial killer" while I was talking about him being a vigilante, which is not the same thing. Ah well.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Guess I didn't look carefully enough, or far back enough then.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll The Authority is on my regular order bblackmoor, so I can tell you that nothing much has changed about the comic you sum up so aptly. That's an interesting interpretation of the comic, particularly re. the status of the status quo (yes, I did write that on purpose!). I can't comment on the JLA comparison, since I don't read that comic. Me neither, but I could've missed something I guess.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Fair points, well put nexus, but I'm not going to answer them any further than that because I really don't want to be responsible for turning this thread into another 'The Authority sucks yay or nay?' thread. OK?

Re: Code VS Killing Poll No one AFAIK. I've just checked back through recent issues, and the only thing I've found that is close to what Worldmaker is on about is in #10, where he expresses his desire to "Hit something," then goes on to add, "The problem is... Sometimes there's nothing to hit." An expression of frustration not unique to "psychopathic little tin gods" I'll warrant.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll There's no need to be so defensive nexus, though I must say that it is odd the way you put it, since "stupid idealist with silly romantic notions" is more-or-less what some might call me! Anyhoo, I'd rather not derail this thread into another discussion about The Authority (of which I am a fan just to make myself clear). I just wanted to clarify the 'angst and crocodile tears' point. I guess the 'angst' bit is aimed at classic 4-colour comics, but the 'crocodile tears' bit wasn't. It was aimed at the real world, at politicians' agonising over their own decisions to deploy lethal force on a large scale. I made this remark because I think that the extreme passions aroused by one of the crucial features of The Authority (namely their use of and attitude to lethal force) derive their strength as much from the metaphorical content of this theme as much as its violation of classic 4-colour morality. That is to say: The Authority takes characters with no vested interests (because they came from nowhere), with powers to change the world, and with a vision of how to use those powers to go about doing so. What we then see is these characters saying things not unlike contemporary politicians, but actually then going on and doing something about it. This fact- that the heroes in The Authority are talk and action- is one of the things that appeals to its many fans. I am suggesting that the less than flattering light that this casts on our real leaders is what makes this theme of The Authority so intolerable to its detractors. And as for the attitude to violence of the false and real Authority... Well, the first point is that the false Authority were just cynical self-servers prepared to say and do whatever it took to continue drawing their paycheque from the powers that be who had decided that the real Authority could no longer be tolerated. Plus you do seem to be forgetting the incident when the false Authority dumped a whole bunch of refugees in the Carrier out into the bleed. Does this not speak of a different attitude towards violence? In other words, I don't accept that the comic supports your contention. So, to bring this back on topic: the Authority is a relevant example of what we're discussing re. the moral content of different superheroic sub-genres because it is the archetypal contemporary example of the post-4-colour style (AFAIK). What interests so many of us in this material is that it short circuits the all-too-familiar gap between rhetoric and reality, while giving a whole new spin to the classic trope of power and responsibility. Look at it like this: imagine a game in which your superheroes (you are a player) get sent back to Germany in the 1920's, in which you find yourself to be as powerful, relatively speaking, as the Authority are in their setting. What would you want to do as a player? Defeat some minor villain but leave the status quo as is with the result that the Nazis still take power and WW2 still ensues? Or would you do what it takes to destroy the Nazi leadership and really change history? If I were the GM, the choice would be yours.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll I don't think it is fair to say that the heroes in The Authority kill without feeling. Easily, yes, but even then, only when the price of killing no-one is that more people will die overall in the end. What is lacking in the heroes' attitude towards killing is angst and crocodile tears. They know what they are doing and why, and don't beat themselves up about the consequences. This is not the same as saying that they kill without feeling. That feeling is depicted in the comic, but unlike classic 4-colour comics, personal moral dramas of the 'to kill or not to kill' sort are not the staple of the comic. What I like about this myself is that it makes the heroes both like and unlike real world politicians. Like- in terms of their pragmatism; unlike- because crocodile tears are as much second nature to politicians as is lying. What the heroes in The Authority also have in common with real world politicians is that they are making decisions which can affect humanity as a whole. Surely it is not too much to suggest that decisions of that magnitude cannot be taken using the same moral yardsticks as those that might affect only a handful of people?

Re: Code VS Killing Poll

Re: Code VS Killing Poll We seem to be very much on the same wavelength here RDU. I have to say though that I believe you are not doing yourself any favours by playing semantic games just to avoid issues with people. Here, you can just ignore such people; in a gaming group I suspect the issues would come up anyway. I mean, you might say 'I'm playing a metahuman rpg', but then surely the first question you'd get would be 'What does that mean?' The result of this would surely be that you'd have to explain it by reference to 4-colour expectations that you are setting out to challenge, which would put you back to square one. If you're going to be at square one anyway, then it seems to me to be a waste of energy avoiding dealing with what that entails.

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Right on the mark zornwil. The problem arises when people argue that non 4-colour stuff isn't even superheroes because it's not 4-colour. If you don't like non 4-colour- to read or to play- then all the more power to you. But to say that this stuff you don't like isn't the superhero genre despite all evidence to the contrary, well that's hardly reasonable, is it?

Re: Code VS Killing Poll Good post RDU Neil. I think you've caught rather well the sense of what post-4-colour superheroics fans mean when they talk about 'realism'. This is something I gravitated to natually when I first started GM'ing superheroes many years ago. I wanted to set up intrigues behind the scenes of scenarios that would eventually force players to confront serious choices about what their characters stood for, and exactly who they were trying to help (something inspired both by the comics I was reading, and by the other roleplayers I knew at the time). So, for example, one of my plotlines involved an alien species that had started cloning well-known politicians (this was at the time of Thatcher's 2nd term, so figures like Michael Heseltine were involved in this) so that they could infiltrate the power structure and quietly start taking over. Pretty much all my players hated Thatcherism, so this would've confronted them with a choice between their own feelings, and their characters' role in the campaign. And for those who didn't have so much emotion invested in their dislike of the government, well they might've come into interesting conflict with the other characters (I trusted my players to handle this kind of thing well). Another plotline I had in mind was based on the miners' strike, which was ongoing at the time. I wanted to put the characters in a position where the authorities 'asked' them to intervene on the picket lines against the miners. This was a straightforward attempt to bring the real world issues into the game (our superhero setting traditionally had our own real world as its background), and again to confront players with moral choices that would have consequences for their characters. These sorts of plotlines aside, the game was always 4-colour, with all the familiar tropes. It's just that I wanted something different from the boy-scout morality of classic costumed cops and robbers.

Re: Seduction an Everyman Skill Once more on this Seduction and trust thing (ie. the real world and not HERO). Part of my understanding on this is based on a guy I know who has slept with over 200 women. This means he must be an expert seducer. I have no idea how he does this (and cannot therefore, relate this to KA's little Spring Break vignette). My point here is that, without trying to moralise about this guy's behaviour, how does he do it? In the end (and here I am diverging from KA's interpretation because the one thing I am sure about re. this guy is that he wouldn't stoop to offering the notion of a relationship to win a one night stand- I believe him to be more honest and straightforward than that), I can only conclude that he must, in some sense or other be applying some kind of pressure, however subtle. I say this because you can't end up with a record of seduction like this guy by accident. You have to go out with the intention of scoring. You find your target (after a false start or two maybe?) and decide that you're not going to take no for answer. And this is my point I guess: in the real world, using conversation and persuasion means that you will take no for an answer; using seduction means that you won't. In the former, the object of your desires is a co-subject of the transaction; in the latter the object of your desires is also an object of the process. Hence my previous remarks. That's about it really. In game terms, if I am on the mark here, then it makes me think that the HERO seduction skill is misnamed, or, if not misnamed, then misdefined.

Re: Using d20 instead of 3d6 (DON'T KILL ME!) In terms of HERO you are surely correct- bell curves are built-in to HERO the way the SPD table is.