|
General
Jan 25, 2011 9:22:50 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 25, 2011 9:22:50 GMT -6
Alright, I was thinking in my character concept and he may be willing to 'torture' the bad guys in order to get more information (ie, really hurt a foot soldier to get info on the 'boss')... I hadn't planned on intentionally harming any 'innocents' though... will that be an issue? Hard to say. They might feel squicky about it. OTOH, The Justiciar might hold him down for ya.
|
|
|
General
Jan 25, 2011 21:12:46 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 25, 2011 21:12:46 GMT -6
Yeah. We're supposed to be heroes, not degenerate murders or torturers. Our jobs are to hunt those scum down and drag them into the light of justice, not sink to their level.
So yeah, I think torture will definitely be an "issue."
|
|
|
General
Jan 25, 2011 21:35:26 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 25, 2011 21:35:26 GMT -6
Yeah. We're supposed to be heroes, not degenerate murders or torturers. Our jobs are to hunt those scum down and drag them into the light of justice, not sink to their level. So yeah, I think torture will definitely be an "issue." He just wants to play Jack Bauer with super-powers…okay, different, less-obvious super-powers
|
|
|
General
Jan 25, 2011 21:49:02 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 25, 2011 21:49:02 GMT -6
Great. Another "anti-hero." Why do I get the feeling that I'm going to be playing the only character who actually has morals? Besides, isn't it some sort of comic book law that says you can only have one anti-hero in the group? If that's the case, then we're already stocked up on crazy.
|
|
|
General
Jan 25, 2011 22:29:36 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 25, 2011 22:29:36 GMT -6
Well, to be truthful: - The group, such as it is, hasn't been established as one thing or another, except that we were hired. No name. No identity.
- Currently we only have one out of four "anti-heroes" (and really, Justiciar isn't all that "anti" when the chips are down—just dour & lone-wolfy). With N8 & Shelly, potentially two out of six.
- We never really determined what sort of "mood" we were going for, either—that is, "serious" vs "campy."
- This is as good a time as any to iron these things out. What do we want? Can we even get everyone on the same page?
|
|
|
General
Jan 25, 2011 23:04:11 GMT -6
Post by LabRat on Jan 25, 2011 23:04:11 GMT -6
I agree with hammering out things now because I do have a few character ideas already in the works and this will help me make sure that I'm on the same page with everyone else. That being said I am also pretty flexible with the tone of the group. Personally I never really was head over heels for characters like superman (you know, the pious golden-boy, do-no-wrong types) just because they were harder for me to identify with. I like characters who have to struggle with their morality and super human abilities. To whom much is given much is expected, but that doesn't mean that it would come naturally to these beings who just happen to have extraordinary gifts. But that is just what I'm more comfortable with. Righteous and Just or dark and twisty...I could go either way. Though if we do go with "Superman" types we should totally be called " The Paramounts"
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 9:43:54 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 9:43:54 GMT -6
I am completely fine playing a Lawful Stupid Paladin character, I just want to know what the group (and importantly, Josh), envisions for the campaign... This was why I asked, before I committed to a character and found of my super squeaky clean paladin wouldn't fit in with people willing to do some bad things for the greater good or vise versa... Personally, I always found the people who struggle with hard moral questions to be far more interesting... Questions where two otherwise 'good and moral' people can disagree on the correct course of action, ie the Watchmen ending (the graphic novel - not the movie)... is Rorschach right or is Dr. Manhattan right? is there a 'right'? (Shelley and I have opposing viewpoints on that, and have discussed it at length) Great. Another "anti-hero." Why do I get the feeling that I'm going to be playing the only character who actually has morals? Hey, hey now, I think that is a bit unfair... I personally believe super heroes like Superman have a overly simplistic view of the world and a child-like perception on 'morality'... give me evil powers and I would have superman a 'degenerate torturer and murderer' within a couple weeks... LE baby, exploit exploit exploit and corrupt... use the his perfect 'legal system' against him... until he realizes unless he ends me permanently, I will gladly destroy the world... so all those people that die due to my schemes are on his hands for allowing me to keep doing evil... and knowing the legal system is helpless to stop me In fact, this comic pretty much sums up my feelings of how superman would be in the "real" world...
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 10:14:16 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 26, 2011 10:14:16 GMT -6
And you've totally missed the point, I think: Mutants and Masterminds is set in an amalgram universe that has the various Big companies (DC & Marvel mostly) mixed in together (e.g., there is the Claremont Institute, which is basically the Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters, and CI is run by M&M's Batman analog) and it is a FOUR COLOR world (wherein the good guys are good guys, the bad guys are scum, and so on. Yeah, gray exists, but its not the driving focus. The "real world" (tm) is irrelevant. Under no circumstances would humanity in the real world not look at a guy who was invulnerable, could fly, lift buildings, and shoot lasers from his eyes with anything other than terror, especially when he starts espousing stuff like Superman does (because most would perceive him as trying to be morally superior, and nobody likes to be judged.) In a comic book universe, though, people look at him and shoot him a thumbs up, because he's out there fighting the good fight.
I dunno what Superman comics you've been reading - sounds like Silver Age stuff to me - but your definition of Supes doesn't track with mine. Yeah, he's a paladin, and yeah, he would like to see humanity's brighter side, but he's also a reporter, which means he sees the scum close up all the time. His entire point of existence is to (hopefully) be a beacon to which others try to emulate. Of course we don't see his struggle as he tries to figure out how to avoid sinking down into the muck with everyone else. Hell, that's the reason he gives Bruce the kryptonite ring in the first place.
And FYI, Superman has killed people in modern comics continuity because they fit that definition you put forth (the mad dog who won't stop until he's dead.)
Bovine excrement. The people that die due to "your" schemes are your fault, not his. Do you blame the policeman for not exercising lethal force at every traffic stop? I mean, if he doesn't, and the driver gets some road rage and plows through a grade school intersection, then by your definition, those deaths are on the cop's hands, not the nutjob driving the car.
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions” (Ronald Reagan)
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 10:51:04 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 10:51:04 GMT -6
I dunno what Superman comics you've been reading - sounds like Silver Age stuff to me - but your definition of Supes doesn't track with mine. Actually I haven't read any comics besides Watchmen, and I only read watchmen recently (before I rented the movie).. I know, I know, HERETIC!!1!... Doesn't sound very moral? How does superman know this person is beyond saving? Why doesn't he trust his precious justice system to solve the issue? How is that a 'four color' system (btw, what are the 'four colors'? good, bad, and what else?)? I agree completely, but I was using Superman's "Silver Age" morality against him... How about a more questionable scenario... I already mentioned it, so let's go with it, the Watchmen ending... a city has been slaughtered, with all evidence pointing towards alien invasion and a cold war that was about to end the world has been avoided with all sides working together to end this perceived new threat... Do you tell people the truth, ensuring they go back to the brink of an apocalypse (which will happen) or do you let the lie continue in order to prevent the people from destroying themselves? What does Superman do, allow the world to end or perpetrate a lie which killed millions?
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 10:55:34 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 26, 2011 10:55:34 GMT -6
Really, the Watchmen argument is irrelevant, since that conflict was really the point of the comic.
When it comes to it, like I said before, we really just need to decide exactly what the flavor of this game is supposed to be, so we can all get on board with it. The current group can lean either way easily enough, because it hasn't been well-defined.
I was thinking of putting up a poll, but those have a tendency to go unnoticed. Might anyway.
I take it that Rigil thinks the Black-&-White standard is the way to go. I'm okay with that, or otherwise if the majority lean another way.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 11:07:16 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 26, 2011 11:07:16 GMT -6
Doesn't sound very moral? How does superman know this person is beyond saving? Why doesn't he trust his precious justice system to solve the issue? How is that a 'four color' system (btw, what are the 'four colors'? good, bad, and what else?)? It pretty much was a Watchmen scenario - he was on an alternate Earth in the wake of the comics' version of Zod & Co. having effectively obliterated humanity because they were bored (or something), and they had their eyes set on visiting Supes' dimension to do the same. There wasn't a justice system anymore. Plus, it was written during the 90s, when the comic creators totally lost sight of what Watchmen actually meant to say. Really, the Watchmen argument is irrelevant, since that conflict was really the point of the comic. Agreed. Throw in the fact that the only reason Watchmen could transpire was because it had exactly one powered hero - in the DC-verse, there are dozens of heroes (and villains) who could potentially undo this entire mess. Remind me to bring in Kingdom Come for you to read. It actually has a nifty moral quandary in it for Supes that I think might appeal to you. Actually, I was under the impression that the GM had already declared when we first started that it was intended to be a Four Color, mostly Silver Age type of morality.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 11:26:42 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 11:26:42 GMT -6
I was merely pointing out that "morals" is not a concrete thing, it is abstract... so saying Legionary is the only character with "morals" is unfair as just b/c the character I was envisioning would be willing to harm a bad guy to obtain information to stop an even worse guy doesn't suddenly make him not a hero and suddenly a degenerate murderer... as I could put Legionary in a situation where his morals would be questionable, and good moral people could call him a savior or degenerate murder in the same debate Actually, I was under the impression that the GM had already declared when we first started that it was intended to be a Four Color, mostly Silver Age type of morality. If that is the case, then I can easily figure out a Silver Age type character... no big deal to me
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 11:32:51 GMT -6
Post by LabRat on Jan 26, 2011 11:32:51 GMT -6
Whoa, looks like Nate and Rigil need to hold hands and sing kumbaya I think that our illustrious GM needs to put his two cents here concerning what he imagined his campaign to be. That would give us some direction. Though Rigil gives indication that he already has (though I can't confirm since I haven't been around that long) and we should shoot for the "silver age standards" unless anyone has any outright objections ::waiting for Nate's objection::
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 11:52:52 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 26, 2011 11:52:52 GMT -6
I think that our illustrious GM needs to put his two cents here concerning what he imagined his campaign to be. That would give us some direction. That would be ideal, but unfortunately, this GM is the least-likely person to actually make an appearance here Clarification may have to wait until Friday. That said, a lighter, Silver-Age approach will be inoffensive and basically guaranteed to work with the setting, so long as one doesn't go overboard with Paladinyness (recalling Aaron's "Galadin" problems, which the noobs weren't around for).
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:03:03 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 26, 2011 12:03:03 GMT -6
so saying Legionary is the only character with "morals" is unfair as just b/c the character I was envisioning would be willing to harm a bad guy to obtain information to stop an even worse guy doesn't suddenly make him not a hero and suddenly a degenerate murderer... Actually, you were talking about torturing a person, which is quite a bit different from just "hurting" them. In a comic book universe, Villains torture, not heroes. When Legionary punches someone, that hurts. When you inflict intentional torture upon them, that kind of goes beyond just hurting them. And is it really that big a surprise that Legionary has such a strict moral code? I mean, his parents - in an alternate timeline - are the M&M Superman/Wonder Woman analog after all... Riiiiight. I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree here because I honestly have no idea where you're coming from here. No one could legitimately call into question Legionary's moral code without seriously distorting reality. Like I said, I was simply under the impression that the GM had declared that. It may not be the case. If the general consensus is a darker, less optimistic group of characters, well then, clearly I'm going to have to look at revising Legionary since I approached this with the "we're the Heroes," with a capital H, a smile and a gleam.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:12:54 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 26, 2011 12:12:54 GMT -6
…well then, clearly I'm going to have to look at revising Legionary… Here's where the source of the issue is. We've seen it happen before, where a conflict develops (particularly with a newcoming character) that results in an unplayable group situation—in the aforementioned Galadin example, I had decided to bring in my "Riddick" character, and Aaron reacted badly to the idea of having Galadin, a LG Cleric, ever work with him—to the point of him refusing to heal the "Riddick" character. Nevermind the fact that the way I intended to play the character would not likely have caused a conflict. Rigil has a pretty solid grasp of his character's identity, and he doesn't want to have to arbitrarily change it to suit a new party mechanic. Whatever the party is/becomes, it needs to mesh, however we arrive at it. If we bring in a character that Legionary will have an objection to working with, either he will have to change, or he will have to have a really good reason not to consider him the enemy.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:14:58 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 26, 2011 12:14:58 GMT -6
Well, in this case, I have no idea what kind of characters we're even considering bringing in. We got sidetracked with discussions of comic book morality versus real world morality (I think.)
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:21:21 GMT -6
Post by LabRat on Jan 26, 2011 12:21:21 GMT -6
Eh, I think its a good change of pace if we're mostly follow a paragon archetype. I mean we will already play anti-hero characters in Rigil's campaign and I don't think there are too many boyscouts in GURPS (from what I can tell) and I don't want to get too monochromatic across the board. Besides, I've never really been a true hero before, so it would be kinda neat to play one
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:22:20 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 12:22:20 GMT -6
Actually, you were talking about torturing a person, which is quite a bit different from just "hurting" them. In a comic book universe, Villains torture, not heroes. When Legionary punches someone, that hurts. When you inflict intentional torture upon them, that kind of goes beyond just hurting them. I think I should clarify my character idea to see if it as bad as I would consider it... A psi character who is willing to get in someone's mind and either 'rip' the data out or (failing that) cause enough pain to make them give it up... I'd assume that is essentially torture... I'd say both cases have very questionable moral decisions behind them... is it right to invade someone's mind without their consent and (assuming it hurts) rip information out? Is it alright to inflict pain enough so they give up their information? Is it right to place them in a false scenario which stresses/scares them to the point of giving up the information (as this could lead to psychological/physical damage)? It is really easy, put them into a situation where their moral code cannot resolve the answer without breaking their moral code...
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:28:41 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 12:28:41 GMT -6
Rigil has a pretty solid grasp of his character's identity, and he doesn't want to have to arbitrarily change it to suit a new party mechanic. Whatever the party is/becomes, it needs to mesh, however we arrive at it. If we bring in a character that Legionary will have an objection to working with, either he will have to change, or he will have to have a really good reason not to consider him the enemy. That is the main rub... Being the new character (along with Shelley coming in) I think it is completely unfair for me to demand that suddenly the group party radically change to suit my preferences... If we are playing super clean good guys, I will make a super clean good guy and have fun with him... if the opposite is true I will do that... I just wanted to know where my boundaries are for the character creation so that I could completely avoid any "Galadin" like problems... For new campaigns, I can help create the group feel before it is established, but the last thing I want to do is come in new and force changes in the party feel that have been long established
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:34:31 GMT -6
Post by Rigil Kent on Jan 26, 2011 12:34:31 GMT -6
Eh, I think its a good change of pace if we're mostly follow a paragon archetype. I mean we will already play anti-hero characters in Rigil's campaign and I don't think there are too many boyscouts in GURPS (from what I can tell) and I don't want to get too monochromatic across the board. Besides, I've never really been a true hero before, so it would be kinda neat to play one Hoo-rah. I think I should clarify my character idea to see if it as bad as I would consider it... A psi character who is willing to get in someone's mind and either 'rip' the data out or (failing that) cause enough pain to make them give it up... I'd assume that is essentially torture... I'd say both cases have very questionable moral decisions behind them... is it right to invade someone's mind without their consent and (assuming it hurts) rip information out? Is it alright to inflict pain enough so they give up their information? Is it right to place them in a false scenario which stresses/scares them to the point of giving up the information (as this could lead to psychological/physical damage)? So basically, you'll be taking over Aaron's psi. And I didn't trust him either and thought he was kind of scum. But that's probably cause I personally wouldn't trust a telepath in any situation. That Charles Xavier guy? I really don't trust him... How exactly does that call into question his moral code? It doesn't. It just places him in an untenable situation where he has to make the choice whether to go against what he was taught and what must be done (or at least what he thinks must be done.) I guess I simply don't get why you're so focused on trying to get Legionary to break his moral code (which has never really been quantified beyond stealing the Knight's code from Kingdom of Heaven: "Be without fear in the face of your enemies. Be brave and upright, that God may love thee. Speak the truth always, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong; that is your oath." )
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:37:48 GMT -6
Post by LabRat on Jan 26, 2011 12:37:48 GMT -6
Ignore him, he just likes to stir the pot for the sake of it being stirred. Obviously he's not getting enough mental stimulation at home
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:51:04 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 12:51:04 GMT -6
So basically, you'll be taking over Aaron's psi. And I didn't trust him either and thought he was kind of scum. But that's probably cause I personally wouldn't trust a telepath in any situation. That Charles Xavier guy? I really don't trust him... I have no idea who Aaron's guy was besides a psi person... and I only considering doing a psi person as Josh said we were losing adaptability, and I figure that needs to be remedied... and I cannot for the life of me figure out a weather controller backstory where he is both interesting and a good guy... it also isn't helpful that the traditional party rolls don't seem to exist in M&M, so its ahrd for me to decipher what the team needs B/c I love philosophy and science... and finding contradictions or situations that cannot be resolved cleanly is a ton of fun for me... really forces a person to think... Such as "do no wrong" in the oath, its so vague it means practically nothing... what if choice between "safeguarding the helpless" and "doing no wrong" suddenly become at odds... He would have to break one part of his oath one way or another
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 12:55:21 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 26, 2011 12:55:21 GMT -6
Well, to be fair, this group/campaign isn't particularly well-recorded. Here's what we have: - Rigil/Legionary—armor guy with "chivalrous" sensibilities
- Dan/Justiciar—Batman/Spiderman mix, a bit of a darker, more mercenary "hero" (but not really qualifiying as an anti-hero)
- Chris/?—rip of X-Men's Gambit
- McN/Kato—teleporting martial artist (don't recall anything else)
Of these, only the first two have much background material available. We used to have a frat-boy psi, and a "lazy" speedster. Personally, I liked the weather-guy idea. Maybe the group-think can work out a good story.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 13:07:13 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 13:07:13 GMT -6
Personally, I liked the weather-guy idea. Maybe the group-think can work out a good story. My biggest problem with the weather guy idea is he is "too familiar".. I keep wanting to put myself in the situation, and if that is the case I think I would be a lot like a Rorschach-esque character, which doesn't fit well in a squeaky clean good vs evil environment...
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 13:11:24 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 26, 2011 13:11:24 GMT -6
My biggest problem with the weather guy idea is he is "too familiar".. I keep wanting to put myself in the situation, and if that is the case I think I would be a lot like a Rorschach-esque character, which doesn't fit well in a squeaky clean good vs evil environment... I see your problem, I think. Could be the case for anyone. As much as Rigil likes to play the paragon, even he will readily admit that him being able to do the Jedi Mind Trick would be very bad for society The solution, I would think, is that although we all have those tendencies, the character needs a strong balancing factor that prevents him from indulging in that sort of behavior. A strict code, for example? Or a "watchful presence" of some kind that pulls him back from the Dark Side™
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 13:25:08 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 13:25:08 GMT -6
Hmmmm that has got me an idea...
Say a good and bad god made a bet... Give a mortal man super powers of their choosing... if that man falls to evil the good god will serve the bad one... if he does not fall, the bad god will be banished... so if my character doesn't be squeaky clean, good loses and evil triumphs? With that kind of responsibility on his hands, it would require him to be a squeaky clean guy and not turn to the dark side...
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 13:52:02 GMT -6
Post by LabRat on Jan 26, 2011 13:52:02 GMT -6
Do you feel like there's a particular character need to round the party out? I'm trying to figure out someone that would fit in with the group though I must admit I'm having some difficulty finding a common thread or unity. I have someone in mind, and I'm really starting to like her but she's in alpha phase right now and I don't really want to go any farther until I'm sure there isn't a dire need for someone else.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 13:54:17 GMT -6
Post by Gigermann on Jan 26, 2011 13:54:17 GMT -6
Do you feel like there's a particular character need to round the party out? I'm trying to figure out someone that would fit in with the group though I must admit I'm having some difficulty finding a common thread or unity. I have someone in mind, and I'm really starting to like her but she's in alpha phase right now and I don't really want to go any farther until I'm sure there isn't a dire need for someone else. "Need" is really hard to define, in this case. What do you have in mind? Maybe we can figure it out.
|
|
|
General
Jan 26, 2011 15:11:38 GMT -6
Post by WxMAN on Jan 26, 2011 15:11:38 GMT -6
Also, can someone post the hero pdfs? It will give me some idea as to what the group has/needs and how to divide up my points. The ones in the team post don't work.
|
|