Nagisawa Takumi

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

That's your take. Only Batman I've seen that acts in that light is Elseworlds' date=' not main line.[/quote']

 

'Main line'? Dude, there are like at least 3 books that have the Bat as the or a main character, and it switches from author to author.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

Actually' date=' I'm saying that if you want 20 points for it, you need to ensure your interpretation imposes enough limitations on the character to justify its "common" frequency at the "total commitment" level.[/quote']

 

But here's the thing.

 

Norrin Radd, the Silver Surfer, respects all life, all of it. Although incredibly powerful, he won't take a life if he can help it.

 

Batman doesn't kill, but is out to make sure that most crooks are too damn scared to try again. He knows all the tricks to make his foes hurt and scream, but has a self-imposed limit.

 

BOTH have CvKs, and BOTH have the full 20 points for it. But it's the OTHER psyche lims they have that determine how much force they want to use. The CvK just says, WILL NOT KILL EVER.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

This all seems very mechanical disad application. My simplistic question would be "Why does he draw the line at killing?". That aspect of his personality should provide an indication to his attitude to other issues.

 

If torture is OK, what about lobotomization? Crippling for life? Hey, as long as he's not dead, right?

What does his other Psychological Limitations say? That's what you should be looking at, because otherwise you're making a CvK stand for about five seperate other disadvantages.

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

Mentalist

 

Power Gaming temptation is too great.

 

QM

You know, when I ran a Champions and then some superhero based games, no one ever played a Mentalist. They were all seen as weak among my groups.

I guess it was lingering bad taste from Palladium's Heroes Unlimited trials we played a long time ago.

And as I said, for me, it's blasters. I suppose I could get to like them, but there's little that they can do for me at the moment.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

In my opinion' date=' there is little in CvK that would prevent a character from torture. The only thing that comes to mind is that the character would not inflict [i']life-threatening[/i] harm on the person being tortured, or if torturing a victim might result in a stroke or coronary (use care when torturing older victims).

 

As has been said before, it's the character's other psych limits that will determine whether torture is a viable option.

 

Having said that, there is also the little detail that America (the country a majority of Champions players are from) views torture as, well, villianous. So a character that indulges in torture could quickly find himself with a very bad reputation, no matter how important the information obtained turns out to be. This is especially true if there is an antagonistic reporter waiting in the wings to interview the victim...

 

So, in general, I don't reccomend torture as a means to gather information if you have a CvK. Because the best way to keep it a secret is to make sure no one ever finds the body...

 

Again, it's the other Psyche Lims that determine your actions in this regard. Most of the Champions, because they are both popular and WISH TO REMAIN AS POSTIVE ROLE MODELS, are NOT going to have things like Vigilante Mentality, or No Mercy For Criminals or similar hard edged psychological issues. More than likely they're going to have Soft Hearted, or Devoted to all Life, or what not, all the limp wristed or weak willed mental problems.

A Batman style vigilante on a crusade, on the other hand, isn't one for the spotlight, and really doesn't care about how he or she is percieved, they want results. Even if they don't ever want to kill.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

Part of what I find ironic about this thread comes from recalling The Dark Knight Returns, often considered the "point of origin" for the Iron Age of Comics, where Bats maintains his strict CVK (even after deciding to finally make an exception for the Joker) throughout, but still tortures, kneecaps, and otherwise strikes terror into the hearts of criminals the rest of the way through the book.

 

"There are seven working defenses from this position. Three of them disarm with minimal contact. Three of them kill. The other... **KRAKK** hurts."

 

"It was tough work, carrying two hundred and twenty pounds of sociopath to the top of Gotham Towers... the highest spot in the city. The scream alone is worth it."

 

"You don't get it, boy. This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon."

"Something tells me to stop with the leg. I don't listen to it."

Bingo. This is a man who CAN kill, but WON'T and yet, will use the maximum force necessary to put the threat down. However, when facing an unknown, he doesn't lash out with full force, he tests the waters first. But at the same time, it's not his CvK that determines how much force he uses, it's his OTHER psyche lims.

Re: Steve's Chat Tonight (Weds., January 28)

Yeah, I just can't see it as a bad thing...

Re: Storn's Art & Characters thread.

appropriatate he's called a parkour he moves like peter parker after the radioactive spider bit him if you take my meaning

thanks again

Yes, Spider man is like the ultimate Parkour. Actually, it's also called 'Free Running', and it's actually based of Jackie Chan movies, the older ones where he did his own stunts and the like.

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

Yeah.

 

I had a character with CAK, who actually used less dice against an agent, and then I rolled almost all 6s, and almost crippled the person I was trying to hit anyway.

 

The character bought levels in pulled punch.

Really? That sounds... Clumsy, as in the mechanic. I'd've allowed you to specify a max amount of damage that you were going for, in my games...

Re: Storn's Art & Characters thread.

Oh' date=' they are there. Just go to "first" arrow and it will take you to the beginning.[/quote']

Ah, OK, although I have followed since the first issue, I was worried because the navigation jumps directly to page 8.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

If it is virtually impossible to kill someone, the frequency of CvK should be reduced for that game. That reduces its value. It is still an absolute commitment. However, if the issue will never arise in a manner which actually disadvantages the character, then the disadvantage should not generate points.

 

If the campaign norm is "you can't kill anyone anyway", CvK is not a disadvantage.

 

If one character's code vs killing is "I won't kill intentionally but I won't make any special effort to avoid it and if everyone else wants to kill people left right and center, that's their business", he should not get as many points as another character's code which is "I won't kill intentionally, I will make every effort to avoid it (including striking with reduced damage against unknown foes) and I will take every reasonable action to prevent others from killing", the second character should generate far more points than the first. That might be because the first CvK is worth less than the second (it's certainly much less frequent). Or it may be because the second character gets additional disadvantages which generate additional points.

 

The important issue is that the player and the GM have the same restrictions, more or less, in mind for the 20 points received.

Wait, I think we're crossing wires here. I'm not talking about impossible to kill someone in a campaign, I'm talking the amount of force used by the character in a campaign.

Now assuming that either characters have a CaK at 20 points, as well as the necessary skills powers to 'know' how much force they need to do their jobs. After all a 15D EB is just as lethal as a 5D RKA. Now, Hero A sees that all they need to put this person down with minimal injury is to use a 4D EB. It'll take a few more hits, but it'll mean little to know extra damage. Hero B on the other hand, notes that a single 6D EB will put this guy down faster, but it will put him/her/it in a hospital.

However, if they pump the damage up to say... 8-10D that would run the risk of actually KILLING the opponent, so they DON'T and WON'T go that far, because of their CaK.

This has nothing to do with whatever limit set by the GM. If it's a Crosshair Collie special where no one will kill, no matter how hard they try, then yes the CaK is worthless, don't bother spending the points, because you've already got it for 0. But if it's an Iron Age Blood and Guts and your heroes have decided that they won't kill even if the bad guys do, then the points are worth it, but again, it's the OTHER Psyche Lims that will detail HOW they go about their fighting, their style so to speak.

That's what I'm saying.

Re: Storn's Art & Characters thread.

Another exciting, action page is up on Catspaw! The fight with the sellswords ends abruptly.

 

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/storn/

Are you guys ever going to upload the original seven pages, for those who've not read them?

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

A character with a disadvantage requires him to strike at less than full force against unknown targets is more limited than one whose disadvantage has exactly identical effects' date=' but does not require him to strike at less than full force. The first character is more disadvantaged, and should therefore receive more points for the disadvantage. Why price them out otherwise?[/quote']

What makes you say that? I can't see it. A CaK means that the character WON'T kill, ever. But that's it.

 

One can have it, and use the minimum force required to put down his foe, while the other will use the maximum possible force, but won't go over the line, ever. It's dependant on his other Psyche Lims in my book.

 

Also, remember, these are Superhero worlds, in real life punching people around can lead to deadly situations where a mild concussion can lead to death, however in a Comic Based game, you could, theoretically, break every bone in a man's body and he'll just be in a bodycast for about a month (Or at least until his next episode) and be back for business, instead of completely paralyzed, if the GM wants it.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

Does the brutality involved in breaking kneecaps or limbs not carry the risk of death for the target?

 

The problem comes down to interpretation. The GM and the player need to be on the same page as to the impact of the limitation. In my view, the player sets the terms of the disad, and the GM assesses the frequency and severity accordingly. "I won't try to kill him, but I'll hit unknown targets full power and break legs to get answers" is a very different disadvantage than "Killing is abhorrent. I will not attack anyone with an attack until I am certain he can survive it, nor would I risk causing injury or death by harming a helpless prisoner".

But both of which can be 20 pts. CaKs. It's the OTHER limitations he may or may not have that CAN dictate how much force he'll use normally.

Someone with a "Protects all Life" won't likely use bone breaking force if he/she can help it. While those with "No mercy to Criminals" are more likely to do so. However, their CaK, being full, means that they BOTH will NOT kill on purpose.

Accidents, however, can happen and CAN lead to great pathos and angst, and which can be character defining and fun.

And isn't that why we play? To have fun?

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

That's exactly what I said. The brutality of his actions are dictated by his other psych lims if he has any.

He can break kneecaps, or limbs, but he won't leave him in the middle of traffic afterwards.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

The problem is that you're looking at just one Psyche. Limitation, when all it does is define how far you'll go, not HOW you'll go about it. You need to consider the other ones you may or may not have.

That's my issue here.

If all you have is a CaK and no other, then as long as it doesn't lead to death, anything goes.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

One further issue: how is this disadvantage limiting the character in play? If it provides no disadvantage, it isn't really a Disadvantage.

 

"Code versus killing anyone unless he thinks they really deserve it" isn't a disadvantage.

Actually, you could call that a "Twisted Vigilante" Psyche lim. Or just the Vigilante one, but as a GM I'd ask what are the criteria for the player to make this call, and I'd ask him/her if I had permission to make them stick with it. I'd need a list of types that he/she would put on the safe and not-so-safe lists in their minds.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

Implied is one thing. Coercion is one thing. Torture is quite another. If you actually torture someone, physically or emotionally, then no, you ain't a hero in my book. Torture isn't even useful; the target will just tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear, to get you to stop. It's not a method of gaining information; it's just a way to rationalize brutalizing and inflicting pain on another human being. No hero resorts to something so thoroughly and despicably evil. There's ALWAYS another way.

 

The ends do not, and never have, justified the means.

Well, if this is your criteria, then no superhero since their creation back in the late 30s has ever been a 'hero' to you. Not Golden, Silver, Iron or Bronze, or any variation of themes in between.

And no, torture is effective, sadly, because people still use it. Whether or not it provides the 'truth' is a matter of debate, either way, every world organization has used it in some fashion.

Also, personally, I believe that implied torture is just as bad as torture itself because even though you are lying about your intent (No matter what the ends you are going for, after all lying is a BAD THING to do) the other person may believe you intend on going through with it.

YMMV.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

I was under the impression Batman had simply 'Will Not Kill', 15pts, which doesn't have any actual implications against minor inflicting of Body damage.

 

I'm reasonably certain Batman is opposed to torture (if not, he certainly doesn't deserve to be called a hero), however if your character's psych lim is what you say it is, I suppose it isn't a violation of said Psych Lims.

 

As far as teammates go, that depends on their psych lims as to whether or not they keep you around. Whether or not it fits with the tone of the game is up to the GM.

 

I'm rambling, but I suppose what I'm getting at is ... Inquiring HEROes want to know ... what? What exactly is the question you're asking?

Batman uses force to get secrets and information out of criminals. That's torture. Threatening bodily harm (Which a lot of the older superheroes, like in the 50 to 70s did) to get information, and that includes dangling over a high place, that's coercion. Sometimes you have to back it up, which is also torture.

So are you saying that all Superheroes (Because all of them have done something similar in their careers) are not heroes?

Superman, Batman, Wonderwoman, the X-Men, the Fantastc Four, the Hulk, Spiderman... All of them have used force or implied the use of, in some fashion to get what they need to save MORE lives.

Re: Code vs Killing, but Gods a little fuzzy about kneecaps.

Greetings HEROphiles, I have a question to add to the debate about Violent Superheroes. Now Batman breaks cartilage, bones, and god know what else when fighting evil doers, but what about Interrogation and gaining their cooperation.

 

Riot (fka; Nemesis) caused quite a few winces from the GM and other Players (and not a few myself). Dislocating joints was a popular choice, breaking/crippling bones, and threatening to tear them apart too.

 

He has a 10 point Disadvantage Code vs Killing titled Kill Only to Protect Innocents, but what about Kneecaps?

 

 

Inquiring HEROphile wants to know?

 

 

QM

Kneecaps are fair game, in my book.

Here's the thing. Depending on which version of the Bat you're reading about he's either afraid of guns, refuses to use or train with them, or he IS a champion gunfighter, BUT refuses to use guns because of the law.

The latter came up in one of the Robin issues. Robin mentioned that the reason the Batman didn't use guns was because he already is breaking enough laws, but none of them are considered 'bad' enough for the Cops to focus on him, but murder would be.

In this case his CvK/CaK is more 'pragmatic' rather than 'emotional'. It could be a total 20 pointer, but it doesn't mean he won't be brutal.

One thing I'm noticing on this board is that people assume that a CaK is the entirety of the concept, which it's not. Batman would have a 20 CaK, but he would also have other Psych. Lims. like No Mercy to Criminals and the archetypical Devoted to Justice.

Again, that would mean that kneecaps are fair game.

Re: Poison's Champions Art Thread

More like I shouldn't put a PENCIL to the pad...

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

Amusingly, I not-too-long-ago played a character with a 20pt CvK who also had a pretty damned huge HKA; a brick who could do the 'tear you limb from limb' sort of thing. He went for quite a while without using it, then we ran into an honest-to-badness dude in a super-vehicle.

 

*DISMANTLE*

 

Anyway, long story short (TOO LATE!) a character with a CvK can mostly certainly have potentially lethal attacks, whether KAs or not. They'll simply use them *wisely* and it shouldn't be their only form of offense.

I don't think anyone here was advocating that. I wasn't, I was saying that if your main mode of combat is a lethal weapon (And that includes any appropriate ammunition required) then I'm going to assume you're going to want (As a player) to be put into situations where you're going to need to use them as intended.

Otherwise, in a gaming situation, do not bother with any sort of HKA if you don't plan on killing, ever.

A CvK is as much a philosophy that details your whole power set (Assuming you're a trained 'paranormal operative' type, like a Gadgeteer, Martial Artist, Power Armour or Weapon Master) as the way you operate.

If you're a Brick, Blaster, Mentalist or whatever else, I'm a little more forgiving, because odds are we're going to be talking about your character and what the goal is with his or her concept. If you're a dude who got irradiated and can throw nuclear blasts around but have a Cvk? Odds are you've learned or are learning to minimize the damage you cause to people.

Again, my opinion, nothing more.

Re: Poison's Champions Art Thread

Not everyone...

 

If I could draw my own characters you'd be flooded in here, even more than from these other guys!

Yeah, well, I just destroyed a pad trying to sketch something today. Not one finished piece because something went so wrong I couldn't recover from it with an eraser...

40 pages, gone.

Oh, and Poison? Repped.

Re: Raptured

I think most, if not all, of my superhero characters would react the same way.

 

Carry on the fight. Perhaps investigate the disappearances, if any clues whatsoever can be found. Hope they're still alive and that some way will be found to rescue them from wherever they have been taken.

 

Probably suspect, and definitely hope, that since many powerful heroes were among the victims, whoever did it may have bitten off more then they could chew.

 

Some of my characters, especially if the victims were known to them, would swear vengeance on the perpetrators if they can ever be found.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

What Would Your Palindromedary Do?

If they are truly heroes? This.

Re: Which is your least favorite archetype to play?

Alrighty! Time to get on top of this pile up! Dogpile!

So what about a martial artist character who knows the Knife Hand (killing attack) maneuver?

 

What's different about his lethal attack and another character that has a lethal attack purchased with a focus limitation.

 

Special Effects alone should not make a difference.

For the EVENTUALITY that HE MIGHT HAVE TO. A lot of styles use lethal force as 'advanced manuevers' for when the occasion occurs where you have no other choice, it's you or him, and hopefully you can do it right, and you're the man (or woman) walking out.

Notice I didn't say ''win".

But if you're not going to kill ever, in a comic setting for your game, which is completely viable with a GOOD GM, then you can still be a 'Black Belt' as per the rule in UMA by just buying 10 points worth of the manuevers, and a KS: in the appropriate style. It's simple, and you don't even need to buy the killing strike. And with enough DCs, you can put down Grond with a punch.

Not trying to pick on you, you were just the most recent to voice this opinion. What about characters who are lethal weapons? I mean, come on. Look at Human Torch. There is no conceivable reason his attacks should be non-lethal. What’s he do? Emit just enough heat to knock a person out without giving them at least 1st degree burns? Heck, anyone with 40+ STR has the potential to kill a normal with one hit. If the “normal” guy can’t walk around with a sword then why can Superman walk around with Lasers and enough STR to kill someone with his pinky?

As far as not considering “trained normals” superheroes, that’s a perfectly fine opinion, and a distinction you can use in your games, but I think it is completely inaccurate to the source material. Batman, Green Arrow, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Mockingbird, Blue Beetle (who’s only super power is being “smarter than Batman”), and Barbara Gordon, are all “normal” people who have served or at least been connected to the strongest teams of “superheroes” in their respective universes. Ask any 10 people to name a superhero; one of them will say Batman. Besides, if Green Arrow and Hawkeye, who both have unnaturally, ridiculously good aim, are not considered “super” heroes than why are Ironman or Green Lantern, both of which have no powers without their respective foci?

Also, just for clarification; are those of you saying people who don’t want to kill shouldn’t carry lethal weapons referring only to ‘supers’ or to heroes in general? If you are specifically referring to supers, I guess it may be a legitimate argument, but if you are talking about heroism and killing or not killing in general, then I have to point out Zorro, The Shadow, and many other Pulp/early Supers who have used swords, guns, bows, and such without killing (at least in many of their incarnations).

The thing with characters like the Human Torch and Cyclops, who ARE the lethal weapons, you have to consider that technically they have no 'choice' (This is assuming you're pretending a 'what if they were real' moment and not going on how the writers were idiots.)

They can't go home and unload their 'weapon' and store it safely. If they don't want to kill (But sometimes, it might happen...) then they should pick ways that minimize harm. Some may not even have that choice, and thus keep their powers off no matter what, or at least, should.

Cops carry guns and don't necessarily want to kill. Heck I don't want to kill anyone at the moment and I have two lethal weapons on my person as a type this post. I'd have more' date=' but these pants are short on pockets and my coat is hung up... [/quote']

 

Unlike Superheroes, Cops don't DRAW THEIR GUNS AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY, they will usually try to talk their way out of a situation. But IF THEY DO DRAW then they WILL (IF THEY HAVE TO) fire to kill. And even if the bullets are rubber or some non-lethal solution, there's still a chance of a death occuring, and they DO take this into consideration. No matter how much CNN and local news channels whine and moan about it. *Beep* Happens, deal with it.

 

Superheroes are usually defined by a schtick, and if that schtick is a lethal weapon, like a Bow with broadhead or armour piercing arrows, then I expect that at some point in the story that he or she will end up killing someone.

 

If, however, all that they ever carry (In terms of ammunition) are 'trick' arrows or whatever, then fine, I have no complaints.

 

But some types of weapons, like a STEEL SWORD? There is not 'stun' ammo for a blade, you go in a fight with one, you intend to CUT someone, if not then you are a DANGER to yourself and anyone you're protecting.

 

Again, if the weapon you've built around your Super ID is like an energy blade that doesn't cut, but shocks the nervous system JUST enough to paralyze temporarily? Yeah, I'll buy it, and I've even wanted to play an 'ex-Ninja-VIPER' who carried a pair of blades like that. He even had non-lethal taser shuriken, a pair of escrima sticks and gadgets!

 

SO: No Hawkeye' date=' Green Arrow, Black Knight, Human Torch (fire is every but as lethal as a manmade weapon), Batman (you don't think those [i']pointed batarangs[/i] could be dangerous, do you?)... or for that matter, any attack in Champions that does 11d6 Normal damage or better (which in one hit will reduce an average person to -1 BODY and bleeding to death).

 

So once we stiplutate that, what's left? Oh yeah, a bunch of guys who will be completely ineffective against Grond, much less an epic villian like Dr.D!

 

Having a potentially lethal attack DOES NOT equal using said attack to kill.

 

Maybe not, but you'll note that the bladed Bat-arangs are NEVER used at a living target, at least in the older versions of the Bat. Hawkeye used to mostly use trick arrows, and the Green Arrow has killed on a couple of occasions that were retconned out of existence. And the Black Knight has a MAGIC SWORD which doesn't follow the laws of regular physics, so is exempt in my opinion. It's not like he carries a KATANA or has Razor Sharp claws built into his cybermetically enhanced/metal plated skeleton.

 

Ammunition counts, if all you use are non-lethal ones, that's fine, but otherwise, man up and accept that sometimes, you may have to put the other guy/gal/thing down like the raging, rabid beast it may be. Permanently.

 

But, then, this is just MY opinion, I could be wrong.