logue

I'm currently in a Super Hero game with a character, Mister Zero. His only power is absolute control of his own body. A power that I've conceived for him is to grow claws, fangs, spines, etc. My first thought is that this is an HKA with variable SFX. However, today I was reading the rules ( in 5th ed) and the passage for Indirect reads something like "Indirect at the +1/4 value; allows an attack to originate from whatever portion of the body chosen by the player at the time of the attack (eyes, hands, nostrils, whatever)." So, if YOU were the GM, would variable SFX (+1/4 for a limited group of SFX) be adequate, or would Indirect (+1/4 to allow attack from whatever body part is chosen at the time of the attack), or would both be required? Thanks,

I apologize for the long post in advance, but feel it’s necessary to bring the relevant considerations to light before judgments are made. I have lurked on these boards since nearly 1995, rarely posting since so many questions come down to “What will the GM allow?” I appreciate the amount of trust placed in the GM by this game system, and so I normally resort to direct communication with my GM. The question I have of a legal matter. My gaming group consists of engineers (mostly computer related) and Mail Delivery Specialists. We possess all the combined legal knowledge that can be gleaned from watching “Law and Order and the History Channel (i.e none at all). I realize that the final arbiter of this issue is, in fact, my GM. Unfortunately my GM, I, and the rest of my gaming group have no real world knowledge on which to base our decisions. So I beseech the members of this community to dispel my ignorance with some level of real world expertise. I’m in a super hero campaign. Our main opposition, at this point, is a lawyer (Ms W.) with minimal super-powers (High PRE and possible low level Mind Control). She does not directly oppose the super-heroes; but wisely, sends others to perform nefarious deed on her behalf. This has caused us to attempt to gather intelligence on her and her boss(es); Corporation CPT. Thus far these attempts have been thwarted by the “Pink Defense”. The Pink Defense is a form of precognition that determines if you are going to perform actions that are to the detriment of Ms. W’s parent corporation (CPT); and if you are, then it transforms you into a bright pink version of yourself. It works on mice intent on stealing food from the break room (acting on natural instinct). It works on a temporary fashion for those who have the intent, but do not follow through on the intent. It works PERMAENTLY on people opposed to the operation of the corporation in their city who trespass on corporation property to throw stink bombs in to the reception area of Corporation CPT; and then retreat. The retreat was prevented by uniformed security personnel in most cases. Those detained by security personnel were eventually released free of the “Pink Defense”. Those who avoided the security personnel are still bright pink. My question is “What are the legal ramifications of the “Pink Defense” according to legal precedent currently in effect?” We know that this defense applies to employees of corporation CPT as well as every single person entering the business property of Corporation CPT or the personal premises of Ms. W. There are no signs posted declaring the existence of the “Pink Defense”. My line of questioning; based on my exceptionally limited knowledge of the legal field falls into two main categories. Please expound on any additional lines of argument that I have neglected and do not limit yourself to the lines of argument that I have delineated. Does the “Pink Defense” violate any legal protection versus unreasonable search and seizure for employees that have signed a contract with stipulations regarding search in relation to determining “moral turpitude”. Does the “Pink Defense” constitute a form of slavery to Corp CPT? Consider that failure to act in the corporation’s best interest, regardless of morality, ethics, or legality; and that any abrogation of the corporation’s best interests results in an irreversible change (turning bright pink) to that person with the ONLY recourse being petitioning the corporation for reversal of the same Thanks for your patience in reading this ridiculously long post and any responses; with especial thanks to those versed in the legal arts for their responses.

I apologize for the long post in advance, but feel it’s necessary to bring the relevant considerations to light before judgments are made. I have lurked on these boards since nearly 1995, rarely posting since so many questions come down to “What will the GM allow?” I appreciate the amount of trust placed in the GM by this game system, and so I normally resort to direct communication with my GM. The question I have of a legal matter. My gaming group consists of engineers (mostly computer related) and Mail Delivery Specialists. We possess all the combined legal knowledge that can be gleaned from watching “Law and Order and the History Channel (i.e none at all). I realize that the final arbiter of this issue is, in fact, my GM. Unfortunately my GM, I, and the rest of my gaming group have no real world knowledge on which to base our decisions. So I beseech the members of this community to dispel my ignorance with some level of real world expertise. I’m in a super hero campaign. Our main opposition, at this point, is a lawyer (Ms W.) with minimal super-powers (High PRE and possible low level Mind Control). She does not directly oppose the super-heroes; but wisely, sends others to perform nefarious deed on her behalf. This has caused us to attempt to gather intelligence on her and her boss(es); Corporation CPT. Thus far these attempts have been thwarted by the “Pink Defense”. The Pink Defense is a form of precognition that determines if you are going to perform actions that are to the detriment of Ms. W’s parent corporation (CPT); and if you are, then it transforms you into a bright pink version of yourself. It works on mice intent on stealing food from the break room (acting on natural instinct). It works on a temporary fashion for those who have the intent, but do not follow through on the intent. It works PERMAENTLY on people opposed to the operation of the corporation in their city who trespass on corporation property to throw stink bombs in to the reception area of Corporation CPT; and then retreat. The retreat was prevented by uniformed security personnel in most cases. Those detained by security personnel were eventually released free of the “Pink Defense”. Those who avoided the security personnel are still bright pink.l My question is “What are the legal ramifications of the “Pink Defense” according to legal precedent currently in effect?” We know that this defense applies to employees of corporation CPT as well as every single person entering the business property of Corporation CPT or the personal premises of Ms. W. There are no signs posted declaring the existence of the “Pink Defense”. My line of questioning; based on my exceptionally limited knowledge of the legal field falls into two main categories. Please expound on any additional lines of argument that I have neglected and do not limit yourself to the lines of argument that I have deliniated. Does the “Pink Defense” violate any legal protection versus unreasonable search and seizure for employees that have signed a contract with stipulations regarding search in relation to determining “moral turpitude”. Does the “Pink Defense” constitute a form of slavery to Corp CPT? Consider that failure to act in the corporation’s best interest, regardless of morality, ethics, or legality; and that any abrogation of the corporation’s best interests results in an irreversible change (turning bright pink) to that person with the ONLY recourse being petitioning the corporation for reversal of the same Thanks for your patience in reading this ridiculously long post and any responses; with especial thanks to those versed in the legal arts for their responses.