Opal

Here's a scarf that leads a life of danger
To everyone he beats, he stays a stangler
With every loop he makes
Another stain he takes
Odds are he'll be laundered on the morrow

I used to GM for a superhero team that was kind of like Suicide Squad, but not actually villains... more just less-publicity-friendly heroes who had gotten a bad rap, or had edgier personalities, etc.  It was like Suicide Squad in that they were sponsored by an off-the-books, "black op" government agency that called them in when ordinary govt. agents couldn't cut it, and they were sort of deemed expendable (or at least, disavowable). Their charter allowed them greater freedom of action, so they could take steps ordinary police or other govt. agents couldn't
 
They were the Proscribed-Operations Level Ten Emergency Reserve, Government-Endorsed International Superhuman Team  (P.O.L.T.E.R.G.E.I.S.T.)

So, villains should all be male, because it's wrong to hit the weaker sex?
 
Villains are villains, and heroes punch, energy-blast, move-through, and generally try to stop them, not because of who they are, what they look like, or where they fall in some Venn diagram of demographics, but because they're doing something wrong, generally involving immediate threat to innocents.
 
We don't need more villains in the dragonlady, femme fatale, and certainly not in the seductress mode, but female master-minds and heavy-hitters, sure, women are human beings, human beings are capable of wielding extreme power and of depths of violence and evil, as well as heights of nobility and heroism.
 
So.  Female iconic Champions! Universe heroes, you'd nominate?   

Here's a scarf that leads a life of danger
To everyone he beats, he stays a stangler
With every loop he makes
Another stain he takes
Odds are he'll be laundered on the morrow

I'm not familiar with the source material being discussed, does the character just duplicate when they take body or do the duplicates actually get weaker each time they divide?

Derek's build works, but so does Duplicate: Creates 1 Duplicate every time body is taken (-1) and each duplicate can have that same power, potentially making it infinite but involving way less housekeeping.

I suppose, if, theoretically, you could just keep creating more and more duplicates?
 
Or, if you can only have so many duplicates, Duplication with a limitation that you can only create one duplicate at a time and only if you were wounded since your last phase?  IDK what value that'd be, I'm out of practice.

Anytime you set a fantastic story in the current day you need to either think through all the ramifications - or think of a way to keep that genie in its bottle.  The toughest thing would be to work through all the ramifications of openly-existing - worse yet, well-understood - supernaturals always having been part of the world, to the modern day.  Rather than tackle that, come up with a way to make the world unaware of them (phew!), easy by comparison.
 
WoD, the way the monsters were kept out of the limelight was front and center of each game:  Masquerade, Delirium, Paradox....

Anytime you set a fantastic story in the current day you need to either think through all the ramifications - or think of a way to keep that genie in its bottle.  The toughest thing would be to work through all the ramifications of openly-existing - worse yet, well-understood - supernaturals always having been part of the world, to the modern day.  Rather than tackle that, come up with a way to make the world unaware of them (phew!), easy by comparison.
 
WoD, the way the monsters were kept out of the limelight was front and center of each game:  Masquerade, Delirium, Paradox....

Yeah, the more we talk about it, the less I like it.
 
People are products of their time.  Moving them around in time either changes who they are, or what they represent in the new context.   1963 Tony Stark was white by default, and 'millionaire industrialist,' defense contractor, playboy, and genius inventor all carried different, mostly more positive connotations (OTOH, alcoholic, which came a bit later, is not so negative today as it was then).   IMHO, the Marvel Movies didn't go far enough in rehabilitating him, and thus made the character less heroic and positive than he originally was.
 
I suppose it's not nearly as pernicious as the expostmodern tendency we see today of leaving the characters in their proper time, but projecting wild anachronism unto them and/or the period.   
 
The former does a disservice to the character, the latter to history, and we know what happens when we don't learn from history.  

Sure.  I suppose it's like literature, some is timeless, some isn't.
 
Shakespeare's plays have been brought forward into various time periods and still worked.   1815's Emma adapted neatly to the screen in 1995's Clueless.
 
Maybe I'm just noticing it acutely in these cases as I actually lived in and remember much of the Silver Age time period - and, lacking the good sense to have died young, also inhabit the current day.

You make a very strong argument, and as I think about it there are several Champions "Iconics" that make more sense in 1985 than now and suffer from the movement.
 
I do think some characters are more mobile than others.  You are very correct on your look at Iron Man, and I feel like every take on the Fantastic Four that severs them from their cold war origins has weakened them.  I'm pretty sure the new Superman TV show starts with Clark Kent getting laid off from the daily planet because journalism isn't really a stable career anymore.
Spiderman's "Geeky Kid with a responsibility complex turned hero" has aged pretty well, although the specifics of that that look like have changed a lot over time.  They even transferred the character concept to Miles Moralis while changing most all of the details and dammit if he isn't a great Spider Man too.

To bring this back to Champions, I think it makes sense whenever they do a "7th edition" Champions Universe to leave some of the characters modern while leaving others in the past as "historical" characters.  Maybe even have them as the suggested villains for various "ages" of Champions if books like "Silver Age Champions" or "Bronze Age Champions" ever come out to exist along side "Golden Age Champions", which manages to have pretty era-appropriate villainy.

Baddies like Black Paladin, Bulldozer (toxic masculinity is pretty "with the times"), Leech, Ogre, Shrinker and many others aren't particularly tied to a time and could work just fine in the 2020s even if they were written in the 80s, assuming you adjust anything incongruent about their backstories.

On the other hand, Eurostar seems a bit dated in the era of the EU and Sunburst is way to tied too nuclear weapons & the cold war to really work in the 2020s.  Both make great "Silver Age" villains if you move them back to the 70s and 80s.

Mechanon is a great villain for most eras, and could straddle several.
I think Doctor Destroyer has suffered from some concept bloat over time.  He is the big bad of the Champions U, but he also has WWII German Origins, a hidden valley in not-tibet filled with loyal followers, island bases, space stations, and in actual play his power level sort of requires you treat him more like Thanos than Doctor Doom (complete with superpowered followers that are more powerful than most heroes).  He can work in most eras but is sort of all over the place and might benefit from a trim in concept.

Sure.  I suppose it's like literature, some is timeless, some isn't.
 
Shakespeare's plays have been brought forward into various time periods and still worked.   1815's Emma adapted neatly to the screen in 1995's Clueless.
 
Maybe I'm just noticing it acutely in these cases as I actually lived in and remember much of the Silver Age time period - and, lacking the good sense to have died young, also inhabit the current day.

Yeah, the more we talk about it, the less I like it.
 
People are products of their time.  Moving them around in time either changes who they are, or what they represent in the new context.   1963 Tony Stark was white by default, and 'millionaire industrialist,' defense contractor, playboy, and genius inventor all carried different, mostly more positive connotations (OTOH, alcoholic, which came a bit later, is not so negative today as it was then).   IMHO, the Marvel Movies didn't go far enough in rehabilitating him, and thus made the character less heroic and positive than he originally was.
 
I suppose it's not nearly as pernicious as the expostmodern tendency we see today of leaving the characters in their proper time, but projecting wild anachronism unto them and/or the period.   
 
The former does a disservice to the character, the latter to history, and we know what happens when we don't learn from history.  

I used to run a campaign that combined Highlander with a few elements inspired by the World of Darkness. I didn't have the rulebooks at the time, so I based the vampires on Forever Knight and werewolves on the Jack Nicholson movie Wolf. Then I added a dash of other elements such as the X-Files.

One thing that's struck me over the years is that the way magic is used, described and related to in very old sources - like Greek mythology, for instance - is very different from traditional fairy tales, which are very different from modern fantasy, is even different from post-modern fantasy.  And, yes, it makes sense the presentation of magic changes with the times, with how it contrasts to the mundane, with prevailing beliefs, and with the role it plays in the story.
 
In traditional fairy tales, even as they were written down after in the 18th or 19th centuries, there's an impression that they're making sense of a mysterious universe, much like religion and other folk tales.  They were for children, they taught moral and even practical lessons, and they presented a consistency that children need, the same story ends the same way each time, good is rewarded, evil punished, etc, as contrasted with reality which was poorly-understood, arbitrary, tragic and cruel.  
 
In modern fantasy, OTOH, while the universe still seemed more uncaring than ever, it was better understood, faith in science was on the rise, which made even everyday miracles seem mundane. So the emphasis on magic in fantasy shifted from providing justice in familiar, consistent stories, to providing a sense of wonder when science had made the world seem less wonderous.  The fantasy of Dunsany, Lewis, and Tolkien (and in a darker sense that of Poe and Lovecraft) takes wonder associated with magic, and uses it to create a less knowable world, rather than a more just and consistent one.
 
Post-modern fantasy, the fantasy of D&D, video games, movies and TV, and literature on the order of Harry Potter, takes it further, in that it's trying to provide a sense of wonder to audiences jaded by the wonders of technology, so magic is wildly powerful, cleverly and practically employed, so that it can outshine modern marvels.  The stories, told, OTOH, are post-modern stories, full of human failings and innately evil  (for evil's sake) systems in dire need of revolutionary change driven by the young and/or outcast.  I guess it'd be a bit cynical to say that's why classes are so imbalanced in D&D and Hero GMs are reputedly more suspicious of magic VPPs than gadget pools, because magic has to be straight-up OP to seem like it's really magic.
 
 

Humble, too.  😜 though, really, that's a very human tendency, creating connections, 'magical thinking,' confirmation bias, whatever you want to call it.  Like our ability to see faces in tree bark, clouds, toast, and photos of the surface of Mars.
 
The Green Goblin certainly throws bombs, and is crazy.  Anarchists stereotypically throw bombs, and may be crazed, but they're not craz-y if I may draw the distinction between extreme action spurred by desperate faith in a belief system and actual mental illness.  So GG isn't an anarchist, he actually /is/ crazy, and doesn't have much of a belief system driving his actions that I've noticed.  In his secret ID he's another evil rich white man, anyway, isn't he?  Y'know, like Lex Luthor, Bruce Wayne, Wilson Fisk, Tony Stark, etc...
 
 

The Unmovable Kid
 
Brandon Backton developed the ability to anchor himself in space, allowing him to stop movement for himself. He floats in the air after a jump and can not be moved if he doesn't want to be moved. Generally Brandon uses his powers to become either a platform or a blockade.
 
Eventually he developed the ability to bounce attacks back at his opponent (both ranged and hand-to-hand damage). He discarded his original villain name in favor of Bounceback.
 
Note: this is not true flight. So that is still available.

One thing that's struck me over the years is that the way magic is used, described and related to in very old sources - like Greek mythology, for instance - is very different from traditional fairy tales, which are very different from modern fantasy, is even different from post-modern fantasy.  And, yes, it makes sense the presentation of magic changes with the times, with how it contrasts to the mundane, with prevailing beliefs, and with the role it plays in the story.
 
In traditional fairy tales, even as they were written down after in the 18th or 19th centuries, there's an impression that they're making sense of a mysterious universe, much like religion and other folk tales.  They were for children, they taught moral and even practical lessons, and they presented a consistency that children need, the same story ends the same way each time, good is rewarded, evil punished, etc, as contrasted with reality which was poorly-understood, arbitrary, tragic and cruel.  
 
In modern fantasy, OTOH, while the universe still seemed more uncaring than ever, it was better understood, faith in science was on the rise, which made even everyday miracles seem mundane. So the emphasis on magic in fantasy shifted from providing justice in familiar, consistent stories, to providing a sense of wonder when science had made the world seem less wonderous.  The fantasy of Dunsany, Lewis, and Tolkien (and in a darker sense that of Poe and Lovecraft) takes wonder associated with magic, and uses it to create a less knowable world, rather than a more just and consistent one.
 
Post-modern fantasy, the fantasy of D&D, video games, movies and TV, and literature on the order of Harry Potter, takes it further, in that it's trying to provide a sense of wonder to audiences jaded by the wonders of technology, so magic is wildly powerful, cleverly and practically employed, so that it can outshine modern marvels.  The stories, told, OTOH, are post-modern stories, full of human failings and innately evil  (for evil's sake) systems in dire need of revolutionary change driven by the young and/or outcast.  I guess it'd be a bit cynical to say that's why classes are so imbalanced in D&D and Hero GMs are reputedly more suspicious of magic VPPs than gadget pools, because magic has to be straight-up OP to seem like it's really magic.
 
 

I'm considering using Brangomar in an adventure set in New Zealand.
 
Because of the LOTR movies, of course.

IDK who that is.
 
But, considering my audience, I'd say that "Fairy Tale" magic functions to teach a moral/in-group/role-affirming/conformity lesson.  Don't stay on the path?  Bad things happen.  Do follow the elders' instructions even though they sound batshit crazy?  You prevail.  Unfailingly polite to even weird creatures?  You make your way past them unmolested.  Violate cultural norms? (unless, it's a batshit crazy thing an elder told you to do) Get transformed into something icky.
 
 
 
 

IDK who that is.
 
But, considering my audience, I'd say that "Fairy Tale" magic functions to teach a moral/in-group/role-affirming/conformity lesson.  Don't stay on the path?  Bad things happen.  Do follow the elders' instructions even though they sound batshit crazy?  You prevail.  Unfailingly polite to even weird creatures?  You make your way past them unmolested.  Violate cultural norms? (unless, it's a batshit crazy thing an elder told you to do) Get transformed into something icky.
 
 
 
 

IDK who that is.
 
But, considering my audience, I'd say that "Fairy Tale" magic functions to teach a moral/in-group/role-affirming/conformity lesson.  Don't stay on the path?  Bad things happen.  Do follow the elders' instructions even though they sound batshit crazy?  You prevail.  Unfailingly polite to even weird creatures?  You make your way past them unmolested.  Violate cultural norms? (unless, it's a batshit crazy thing an elder told you to do) Get transformed into something icky.
 
 
 
 

Brangomar, aka the Shadow Queen, most recently written up Champions Villains Volume One: Master Villains, is essentially Disney's Maleficent (the classic animated version from Sleeping Beauty, not live action); except that instead of being a dark faerie queen who can transform into a dragon, Brangomar is a dragon using magic to appear as a human-like woman. Her personality and style are very much like Maleficent, and like the evil Queen in Disney's Snow White. Brangomar rules a land called the Shadow Realm in the dimension of Faerie, that being the sum of all the lands, races, creatures, and gods from human myth and legend. The Shadow Queen is also a powerful sorceress in the aforementioned "fairy-tale" magic style.

Assuming Opal's last one counts this will be number 7 but I'll give Lorehunter the right to call it.
 
Remidi8
 
This member of the Samaritans is a Buddhist and uses the 8 pillars of Buddhism to conduct himself. He is a vegetarian. His goal is the end of suffering and he follows the four noble truths of Buddhism, the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering and the path that leads to the end of suffering. He will look at the big picture and look to resolve a big issue to end suffering but he can focus on an individual to end their suffering. He works primarily with Saving Grace as she travels to where there is suffering and that is his calling. His martials arts skill is to disarm and disable and take down opponents. He has code against killing. The other benefit of his skill is to let projectiles pass him by.
The one concession to modern life is the codename he uses.

But they don't make nearly as much noise as internal combustion engines, which are more than loud enough to scare horses, which is why they should never have been allowed to have been operated in public, in the first place.