Topic: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Started by: Tuxboy
Started on: 4/5/2006
Board: Muse of Fire Games
On 4/5/2006 at 3:14pm, Tuxboy wrote:
Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Split from Abilities thread...
Hey! A cool plot idea - Mr Evil successfully is able to dominate the planet, but Captain Good unleashes Armageddon, killing everyone on the planet and freeing them to experience the same freedom and the Captain does. ;)
I think you've just turned Captain Good into a supervillain, chief. That's classic twisted villainthink right there.
You would think so, BUT if Captain Good *knows* death is not a limitation or end (because he *is* dead) then death becomes a way to free all those enslaved by Mr. Evil. It's ironic, but given the premise, it makes sense.
And yet, it's just the sort of goal that the other heroes would band together to stop - if they are worthy of the title, that is.
You would think so, BUT if Captain Good *knows* death is not a limitation or end (because he *is* dead) then death becomes a way to free all those enslaved by Mr. Evil. It's ironic, but given the premise, it makes sense.
And yet, it's just the sort of goal that the other heroes would band together to stop - if they are worthy of the title, that is.
That's assuming the other heroes aren't that bright - but if they are, they themselves may join the Captain to better fight Mr. Evil.
*L* But he still just murdered the entire planet, it doesn't matter what his justification was, I'm sure the majority of murderers have justified their reasons to themselves, To deprive the whole population of their freedom to choose and to live means he is still a mass-murdering supervillain in the mould of Galactus or Darkseid.
It is so hysterically funny to see you try and defend it as a heroic action...now that is irony *LOL*
will try to briefly explain this quick and simply.
The Captain has died.
The Captain still exists. He still can have an effect on the world - more than he could when limited by having a human body. He can even *take* a body when he wishes, for a while.
So the Captain know death is not death - therefore murder is not murder.
If Mr Evil incarcerates all the good people across the planet, how is the Captain's releasing them form their mortal shell in any way bad? Thay are still here, can do eveything they could, and much more.
*LOL* Seriously?!?! *LOL*
Death is still death, it doesn't matter whether there is a new life after death that Captain "Good" thinks is better or not. He snuffed out the lives of every living thing on the planet without their consent because he thinks knows what is better for them. That makes him a megolomanical mass-murderer no matter what his reasons.
murder (n.)
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another
By definition a murderer and thoroughly evil by act if not intent *G*
Captain Good: But it is better than living under the tyranny of Mr. Evil
The population of the world: Hey that is our decision not yours, you killed us.
Captian Good: But its better this way.
TPotW: Says you! Did you ask us? We were about to rise up and overthrow him with help from the real heroes.
Captain Good: But look you are so much better off.
TPotW: He's a psycho!!! Come on let's get him, Hold him down so Mr Evil can pummel him.
Besides...from a purely mechanics stand point the Comics Code would force Captain Good to Gloat rather than destroy the world...clue: if the Comics Code causes Gloating it really isn't an heroic action.
Oh man I really hope you are being funny because I don't see how destroying an entire planet can be seen as morally defensible let alone be portrayed as an Heroic act. Thanks for injected some humour into an otherwise dull day *wanders off chuckling*
On 4/5/2006 at 3:32pm, TonyLB wrote:
Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
In one of my convention games, one of the heroes in the group was a space-faring shape-shifting amoeboid thing.
The player decided that the character had come to Earth to free them of the burden of individuality, by making all minds part of an undifferentiate organic/mental soup. There was some natural opposition to this plan, but he was determined, because by all that is Just and Right he knew that his way was better.
My absolute favorite line? "You haven't even tried being monomolecular ooze! How can you say you won't like it before you even try it?"
On 4/5/2006 at 3:36pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
"You haven't even tried being monomolecular ooze! How can you say you won't like it before you even try it?"
*ROFL*
Yeah but at least he discussed it with them first ;)
On 4/5/2006 at 3:40pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
I think that this is a fascinating story and I'm glad that Capes lets us explore it.
Basically, it's the issue of colonialism. "I know what's good for you! And I'm more powerful! So you're goint to take it!"
Is that good or bad? This isn't just an idle thing about guys in tights. This is hugely important to the modern political scene.
yrs--
--Ben
On 4/5/2006 at 7:21pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Tuxboy wrote:
Besides...from a purely mechanics stand point the Comics Code would force Captain Good to Gloat rather than destroy the world...clue: if the Comics Code causes Gloating it really isn't an heroic action.
I just wanted to point out this is not completely true. For example, under the '50's style code, the following conflicts would, I think, be gloatable by heroes but would be considered heroic action:
* Goal: Spiderman reveals his secret identity in order to save the hostages
* Goal: Time traveller uses super-science to make child Adolf Hitler a nice person.
* Goal: Reed Richards finds a cure for the AIDS crisis in Africa.
Gloatable things aren't necessarily good or bad from a moral or ethical perspective, they are simply things that the group agrees would be bad to happen from a narrative perspective.
On the whole "killing the planet; heroic act?" question, it depends a lot on the genre of stories you are shooting for. Its not a question of whether in real life it would be a good or a bad thing to do; I hope that everyone reading this could agree with the people piling on Captain Good in Tuxboy's dialogue if someone said that. But we aren't talking real-life, we are talking fantasy...
If its typical four-colour comics (say, Lee/Kirby), then it sounds like classic supervillain stuff. In fact, the whole "death is my gift to you" schtick sounds so familiar to me that I think it WAS the concept behind some classic supervillain. Its not to far from the High Evolutionary's thing of "evolving" humanity for its own good, and it is in the same neighborhood as Judge Death's whole "life is the crime, death is the cure" thing from Judge Dredd/2000 A.D. There were certainly other supervillains who plotted other very drastic actions "for humanities own good."
But if it's Grant Morrison or Neil Gaiman you are shooting for, who knows? Those writers and their peers love to pull the rug out from under the reader and comletely twist their perceptions. I could just see one of them writing a storyline between Captain Good and Major Evil, where Captain Good tries to kill everyone in the world, "to usher them into the Paradise Alignment" or similar. Major Evil destroys him, and then finds out that, hey, you know what, Captain Good was RIGHT! There was some kind of strange cosmic alignment, and if all of humanity had died, all would have ascended to some obviously higher plane of paradise. It was an all or nothing proposition, though; either the whole planet went or none did, and, guess what, too late now, the chance doesn't come around for another million or so years. It would have made a great plotline for Morrison's Doom Patrol. Actually, it bears some similaritities to the Korvac Saga, from the Avengers, at least if you believe that Moondragon was right about Korvac.
On 4/5/2006 at 9:33pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
You guys...
(lol)
ok, fine, let me change the words...
Mr Evil incarcerates all the good people on the planet.
Captain Good shouts so all the people on the planet can hear:
"I have been transformed and now am not subject to the limits of physicality - though I am able to incorporate or discorporate at will. This gift is available to any and all who want freedom from Mr. Evil and his jail cells. Simply think the word *blingargo* and you shall be ascended to this higher form"
...which is functionally equivalent to what I said before, but is now wrapped up in pretty paper so that now it may not trigger whatever bugaboo got triggered before.
Let's review...
Mr Evil = incarcerates the Good = infringer = villain.
Captain Good = frees the wrongfully incarcerated = rescuer = hero
Any have a problem NOW?
[chuckle]
On 4/5/2006 at 10:00pm, Matthew Glover wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
I don't think that's exactly "functionally equivalent."
In Scenario A (reading as I believe Tuxboy intended), the Captain kills everyone on earth because he believes people will be better off dead. Your original phrasing was, after all, "Captain Good unleashes Armageddon, killing everyone on the planet".
In Scenario B (reading as I believe you intended) , the Captain reveals to everyone that they have the power to ascend to a higher plane and gives them the choice.
On 4/6/2006 at 1:02am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
OK, then consider it amended:
instead of dead, read "ascended"
and the hero will ask "can I please free you from your cell by given you powers beyond your wildest dreams" - although in most superhero the hero does not ask before he busts down the door...
Actually, I can't remember a single time a hero has asked permission to rescue someone before doing so.
[chucklex2]
On 4/6/2006 at 1:29am, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Well, cool ... so that's not what Sindyr meant. I still think it's a fascinating subject to discuss.
My take on it is that many of the best supervillains believe that they're superheroes. Magneto, obviously. Doctor Doom feels that the world would be better off under his rulership, and certainly the spectacularly well run (if oppressive) kingdom of Latveria makes it hard to say that he doesn't have a point.
So how's that for a good way to make up a really spankin' supervillain: Take a superhero, and then push him that extra bit beyond sane virtue and into the world of megalomania?
I mean ... the Justice League (comics and television) has done this more often than I can conveniently count. Seems like a pretty good formula, and one well worth paying attention to.
On 4/6/2006 at 8:44am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
OK, then consider it amended:
K, we'll just put it down to a faulty example *L*
My take on it is that many of the best supervillains believe that they're superheroes. Magneto, obviously. Doctor Doom feels that the world would be better off under his rulership, and certainly the spectacularly well run (if oppressive) kingdom of Latveria makes it hard to say that he doesn't have a point.
So how's that for a good way to make up a really spankin' supervillain: Take a superhero, and then push him that extra bit beyond sane virtue and into the world of megalomania?
I mean ... the Justice League (comics and television) has done this more often than I can conveniently count. Seems like a pretty good formula, and one well worth paying attention to.
Exactly...this is my preferred style of play, in fact I don't think I've created a single hero that didn't have a decent mix of supposedly villainous drives with the heroic, it creates a much more interesting individual...nothing like an Obsession or Pride Exemplar on a "hero" to attract those resources ;)
And the "good guy" gone "bad" is always fun to play with...especially if the rest of the group don't see it coming..."He did WHAT?!?!"
I have found that playing with the concept "The End justifies the Means" always produces interesting situations and storylines, the conflict between the opposing sides becomes increasingly blurred as each side is pushed further and further...
Now that's my idea of fun ;)
On 4/6/2006 at 12:12pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Tuxboy wrote:
And the "good guy" gone "bad" is always fun to play with...especially if the rest of the group don't see it coming..."He did WHAT?!?!"
Also especially if the rest of the group did see it coming. "This is why I kept this chunk of Kryptonite in a lead vault all these years. I'd hoped I would never need to use it, but even back then ... there were worrying signs."
On 4/6/2006 at 12:34pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
This is why I kept this chunk of Kryptonite in a lead vault all these years. I'd hoped I would never need to use it, but even back then ... there were worrying signs."
Ah the old Batman gambit "Someone as tightly wound as Clark is gonna snap at some point." ;)
On 4/6/2006 at 12:37pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
I had enormous fun with a comic opposite version of this at the DexCon game I played with Tony -- playing a character with all heroic drives who was nonetheless infused with *evil*
yrs--
--Ben
On 4/6/2006 at 1:42pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
"This is why I kept this chunk of Kryptonite in a lead vault all these years. I'd hoped I would never need to use it, but even back then ... there were worrying signs."
Though this does make you wonder just how unstable Supes was that Batman, of all people, thought he'd snap...*shudders*
On 4/6/2006 at 1:50pm, Matthew Glover wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Are you kidding? Batman thinks everybody will snap. He's utterly paranoid, so he has contingency plans for anybody who might possibly someday maybe become a threat.
On 4/6/2006 at 2:01pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Ben wrote:
I had enormous fun with a comic opposite version of this at the DexCon game I played with Tony -- playing a character with all heroic drives who was nonetheless infused with *evil*
I have this idea on the backburner that some day I have to play a character with all villainous drives, who is a hero despite himself. Sort of like Doom, as viewed by a grateful citizen of Latveria. Yes, he's an obsessed, power-hungry, egotistical mad-man ... and that's why he defends us so well!
On 4/6/2006 at 2:01pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
*LOL* so very true...guess that why I like him so much...
On 4/6/2006 at 2:13pm, Ben Lehman wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Oh, speaking of which.
In hindsight, here was my plan for what the Iron Brain could do with Dr. Enigma's Virtue -- add it to the city water supply. After all, the Iron Brain is not satisfied with two paltry heroes to fight! He demands a whole city full of heroes to best with his brilliance!
And then the "heroes" would have to stop him from... turning everyone good?
yrs--
--Ben
On 4/6/2006 at 2:31pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
And then the "heroes" would have to stop him from... turning everyone good?
Oh now I like that...hell it would be like playing City of Heroes if they failed..."but I was going to save them...and I saw them first"
On 4/6/2006 at 2:47pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
It's interesting how the Batman versus Superman story comes up with certain types of people in certain circumstances.
It's almost axiomatic. That aside, my original point at the start of all this is simply that if Captain good dies, and realizes that death (apart from the potential pain of dying) is exactly like being alive except that you get MORE choices, then using death to rescue people in bad situations (assuming that he had a painless way to do it) is no different from other ways to rescue them, like opening a locked door so that they may escape.
To recap, if Captain Good after dying has all the same options and abilities as he had before dying, but also more in addition, then how is it wrong or unheroic for him to give that to others, even *if* he doesn't ask first?
A perfect analogy is finding a guy with 10$. You slip another 15$ in his pocket without asking his permission.
If this is the extent of your "crime" are you really a good guy or a bad guy for "forcing" extra money on this guy? (Assuming good intentions and no evil plan as well for you nit pickers out there)
Now I know some of you guys see the name "Sindyr" and go into combat mode without thinking [chuckle] but really, consider the above - that is a HERO.
:D
On 4/6/2006 at 2:56pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
On the flip side, I was inspired to create a supervillain for the Saturday Capes Game that thinks he's a hero. Basically, he believes that it is vitally important that the human race toughen up and get stronger - so he creates mass trauma. His mottoes are "no pain, no gain", "Evolution is not a choice, it's an obligation", and "Pain and suffering are the shortest path to wisdom and strength"
He probably experienced some kind of major trauma in his youth, learned to draw strength from that, and is now obsessed with making everyone else go through the same thing. Perhaps at some deep subconscious level he simply wants to punish anyone who avoids trauma when he did not have that choice - or maybe he is truly megalomaniac and thinks he knows what's best for all - and their pain and suffering is a price he is willing to pay.
Perhaps it is eventually discovered that he released a virus that "only" killed 10% of a city's population - enough to make sure that most people lost someone. Maybe his current plan is to kill a beloved and revered leader, knowing that will send millions of people across the globe into shock and horror.
Maybe he did that once before in Texas.
Anyways, some thoughts about a villain who perceives himself as a hero, fighting the good fight.
On 4/6/2006 at 3:16pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
It's interesting how the Batman versus Superman story comes up with certain types of people in certain circumstances.
Really? That's an interesting statement. Which particular Batman v Superman story? Which types of people and what circumstances? *L*
To recap, if Captain Good after dying has all the same options and abilities as he had before dying, but also more in addition, then how is it wrong or unheroic for him to give that to others, even *if* he doesn't ask first?
*L* I thought we had covered this, it was a faulty example that you cleared up my making your intent clearer. First example made him a murderer, second example didn't. The removal of people's freedom of choice to live or die was the issue.
Now I know some of you guys see the name "Sindyr" and go into combat mode without thinking [chuckle]
*LOL* You think? Could it not also be possible that:
1) People think it through then go into "combat" mode
2) People think it through, give a rational argument that you disagree with, and are perceived by you to be entering "combat" mode.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that most arguments that disagree with you are unthinking personal attacks, I think you'll find that most posters will think long and hard before posting reasoned responses, and should be given credit for that.
On 4/6/2006 at 3:22pm, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Anyways, some thoughts about a villain who perceives himself as a hero, fighting the good fight.
As Tony mentioned earlier the villain that believes himself a hero is a staple of comic books, his examples of Magneto and Dr Doom are pretty much the archetypes for this.
They are prefect for the exploration of the grey areas of morality.
I might be wary of using him as a central player in a first time game of Capes though...the ambiguity of his nature might cause issues, but then again you might end up with some great conflicts because half the players side with him and half don't ;)
On 4/6/2006 at 3:52pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
There's also a pretty significant "the winner writes the history books" phenomenon there.
Let's say I play Jenny Sparks, and I argue that super-beings have a moral duty which surpasses governments ... screw the governments, and screw the will of the populace, we're going to do what we know is right and we're going to freaking boot-stomp anyone who tries to stop us.
If the players all line up to oppose Jenny then you get a story in which she is the villainess.
If the players line up to support Jenny then you get The Authority, in which she is a heroine.
On 4/6/2006 at 4:49pm, dunlaing wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
TonyLB wrote:Tuxboy wrote:
And the "good guy" gone "bad" is always fun to play with...especially if the rest of the group don't see it coming..."He did WHAT?!?!"
Also especially if the rest of the group did see it coming. "This is why I kept this chunk of Kryptonite in a lead vault all these years. I'd hoped I would never need to use it, but even back then ... there were worrying signs."
I know other people saw Batman when you said this, but the "rest of the group" part gave me a nice image in my mind of 6 panels, all laid out on the page around a single thought balloon connected to each panel, with each panel showing a different member of the Justice League reaching into a lead vault (although Flash's "lead vault" is probably just a sock under his bed).
On 4/6/2006 at 4:52pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
TonyLB wrote:
There's also a pretty significant "the winner writes the history books" phenomenon there.
I would say the hero is not merely the hero because he got to write the history books. I would say that committing acts that are villainous precludes one from being a hero.
I have some specific ideas of which acts are heroic and which are villainous, and I plan to ultimately be in Capes games that support those ideas - but that gets into the *other* thread, http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19312.msg202994#msg202994 so I shall say no more here.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 19312
On 4/6/2006 at 4:56pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
A perfect analogy is finding a guy with 10$. You slip another 15$ in his pocket without asking his permission.
If this is the extent of your "crime" are you really a good guy or a bad guy for "forcing" extra money on this guy? (Assuming good intentions and no evil plan as well for you nit pickers out there)
We all can agree that in general someone who *steals* 10$ from your pocket is not a hero.
What about someone who places 10$ in your pocket without asking permision?
I am truly and deeply interested in how different people answer this question.
On 4/6/2006 at 6:24pm, drnuncheon wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
TonyLB wrote: If the players line up to support Jenny then you get The Authority, in which she is a heroine.
I've always believed that The Authority was about a group of supervillains.
wrote: A perfect analogy is finding a guy with 10$. You slip another 15$ in his pocket without asking his permission.
I dispute the perfection of that analogy, because it leaves out what makes the "kill them to save them" idea creepy and evil - that is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them. It is the perfect expression of the philosophy "the end justifies the means".
Given that, it is more akin to breaking into someone's house to leave them $10. Or stealing their identity in order to clear up their credit history. Or kidnapping them and subjecting them to experimental surgery that gives them super powers. Sure, you're arguably doing them a favor, but you're doing it in such a way that violates them. I know I'd be pretty creeped out if any of those things happened, and I certainly wouldn't regard the perpetrator as a "hero".
J
On 4/6/2006 at 7:35pm, TonyLB wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
drnuncheon wrote: I've always believed that The Authority was about a group of supervillains.
It's an interesting question. Some days I see it one way, some days I see it another. The funny thing is that the story doesn't get any less interesting, and I don't sympathize with the characters any less, when I think of them as supervillains. They're such cool supervillains. I love Midnighter's speech after they singlehandedly topple a dictatorship and slaughter its troops: Yes, I'd say it's extremely likely you can expect this sort of behavior again in the very near future. The 21[sup]st[/sup] century is a bad time to be a bastard, children. And he's dressed all in black leather. Now that is a cool supervillain. That's the kind of megalomaniac I want looking out for me.
The whole "hero" and "villain" labels are a bit wonky, anyway. They really just mean "someone who does most of the important things right" and "someone who does most of the important things wrong," and what that leaves wonderfully, enjoyably up in the air are the questions of "What is right? What is wrong? What are the important things?"
On 4/6/2006 at 8:07pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
drnuncheon wrote:
That is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them.
This seems a good place to point out that what are perceived as fundamental rights, or better to say, the fundamental goods, that a society holds dear, is to some extent culturally based. In the West, we tend to view personal liberty and freedom as the highest good; if a trade off needs to be made, the trade off will almost always be one that maximizes personal liberty at the cost of something else.
But that is not universal. A lot of people living in the former Eastern Bloc would perhaps list societal order (lack of crime, security of income and housing, etc.) as a greater social good than personal liberty; witness the vast support, even taking into account vote rigging, that people like Lukashenko get in Belarus. In some societies, adherence to societal standards is more important than personal liberty; witness what seemed the close to universal opinion of the man on the street in Afghanistan regarding the culpability of Abdul Rahman for his conversion to Christianity.
Therefore, what the player thinks is heroic or villainous may be very different, not just the what the character thinks, but from the societal perspective that character lives in as well. Since almost all comic books are written from at least a neo-Western perspective, personal liberty has usually been considered the prime good. But you could easily run a Capes game from the perspective of, say, the old Soviet Union, where the "super-heroes" could conceivably do things that we, as players, would find horrible, and within the context be given accolades.
Or, you could enjoy the fun in the Psychadelic Capes one-shots I have organized, where the "super-heroes" are the ones that take nonconformity as the highest good, and the "super-villains" are the representatives of staid, oppressive, normalcy. In Psychadelic Capes, if the Trip, a "hero", causes a tax auditors meeting, through his mind control powers, to simultaneously erupt into a massive orgy and dance party, this is not only acceptible, it is a heroic act. Those squares NEEDED their minds freed!
The fun of this, and the meaningfulness of it, is that it helps the PLAYER explore their own understanding of right and wrong.
On 4/7/2006 at 1:23am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
drnuncheon wrote:wrote: A perfect analogy is finding a guy with 10$. You slip another 15$ in his pocket without asking his permission.
I dispute the perfection of that analogy, because it leaves out what makes the "kill them to save them" idea creepy and evil - that is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them. It is the perfect expression of the philosophy "the end justifies the means".
Given that, it is more akin to breaking into someones house to leave them $10.
No, it's more akin to teleporting into their house a 10 dollar bill
Or stealing their identity in order to clear up their credit history.
Only if ALL you did was clear up their credit history and in the process did NOT see any of their private details.
Or kidnapping them and subjecting them to experimental surgery that gives them super powers.
I dispute *this* comparison entirely. This is in no way what I am suggesting.
Sure, you're arguably doing them a favor, but you're doing it in such a way that violates them. I know I'd be pretty creeped out if any of those things happened, and I certainly wouldn't regard the perpetrator as a "hero".
I think that begs the question of is this a violation at all to being with?
Is it a violation to beam a 10 dollar bill into the middle of your house?
To wave a magic (or hacker) wand and make your bad credit disappear?
If the ONLY difference is that the person loses nothing and gains something at no cost, how can we say a violation has occurred at all?
Perhaps we still can, but I would like someone else to take the con side as I continue with the "pro" side.
On 4/7/2006 at 1:30am, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Hans wrote:drnuncheon wrote:
That is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them.
This seems a good place to point out that what are perceived as fundamental rights, or better to say, the fundamental goods, that a society holds dear, is to some extent culturally based. In the West, we tend to view personal liberty and freedom as the highest good; if a trade off needs to be made, the trade off will almost always be one that maximizes personal liberty at the cost of something else.
This is also a good place to point out that there may in fact exist absolute and fundamental rights regardless of what one society or another perceive, subscribe to, or approve of. Debating the existence or content of actual fundamental and absolute rights is probably beyond the scope of not only this thread but this forum and indeed even this website, but I thought that while everyone was talking about moral relativism, someone should pipe up and point out the possibility that morality and ethics, and certain values, are not "relative" or "shades of grey" but absolute and black and white.
And given that possibility, it becomes interesting to play in a game reflecting that, with heroes being heroes, villains being villains, good and evil, right and wrong, and nary the twain shall meet. A world where the choices aren't always simple, but there is usually a "right" one.
Now I can't imagine many of the vocal posters reacting happily to the above thoughts, but I thought someone should play devils advocate and point out the possibility and utility to Capes and storytelling of absolute morality.
On 4/7/2006 at 9:27am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
I know other people saw Batman when you said this, but the "rest of the group" part gave me a nice image in my mind of 6 panels, all laid out on the page around a single thought balloon connected to each panel, with each panel showing a different member of the Justice League reaching into a lead vault (although Flash's "lead vault" is probably just a sock under his bed).
Beautiful image...I like that, especially Flash searching through the pizza boxes and dirty plates to find "that" sock *L*
On 4/7/2006 at 10:20am, Tuxboy wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
. I love Midnighter's speech after they singlehandedly topple a dictatorship and slaughter its troops: Yes, I'd say it's extremely likely you can expect this sort of behavior again in the very near future. The 21st century is a bad time to be a bastard, children. And he's dressed all in black leather. Now that is a cool supervillain. That's the kind of megalomaniac I want looking out for me.
I think you can tell from my sig I agree with that sentiment ;)
Can't say I think of The Authority in terms of "heroes & villains", I always saw them as a group of concerned individuals that had just had enough of the world's hypocrisy and corruption, but a group of individuals with the power to do something about it.
The whole "hero" and "villain" labels are a bit wonky, anyway. They really just mean "someone who does most of the important things right" and "someone who does most of the important things wrong," and what that leaves wonderfully, enjoyably up in the air are the questions of "What is right? What is wrong? What are the important things?"
Its the whole black and white thing, the exploration of what is good and what is evil that I find interesting when gaming. I enjoy looking at those boundaries.
For me "The End justifies the Means" is the ultimate morality question.
In a game are we justified in slaughtering a entire village of orcs because some of them may grow up to become hostile? If real life is the death of one man worth saving the lives of many, are the deaths of 1000 worth saving the lives of 100000, 999 worth 1000? Where does the line fall? Historically were the bombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan morally acceptable? Was sacrificing those civilian lives to shorten the war the ultimate in "The End justifies the Means"?
I'm well aware that there are people that don't feel comfortable dealing with that kind of moral ambiguity, but for me I enjoy gaming in the "real world" with "real world" questions and challenges.
Sindyr wrote:Hans wrote:drnuncheon wrote:
That is, the violation of one of their fundamental rights under the excuse of helping them.
This seems a good place to point out that what are perceived as fundamental rights, or better to say, the fundamental goods, that a society holds dear, is to some extent culturally based. In the West, we tend to view personal liberty and freedom as the highest good; if a trade off needs to be made, the trade off will almost always be one that maximizes personal liberty at the cost of something else.
This is also a good place to point out that there may in fact exist absolute and fundamental rights regardless of what one society or another perceive, subscribe to, or approve of. Debating the existence or content of actual fundamental and absolute rights is probably beyond the scope of not only this thread but this forum and indeed even this website, but I thought that while everyone was talking about moral relativism, someone should pipe up and point out the possibility that morality and ethics, and certain values, are not "relative" or "shades of grey" but absolute and black and white.
The possibility of absolutes does indeed exist, and while some aspects of morality may be shared across cultures, given human nature, it in practice is much more fluid than that, and imposing a rigid black and white structure on people that do not share your belief system is doomed to failure or worse, outright hostility as demonstrated by, historically, The Cold War, and currently by the continuing religiously driven conflicts around the world.
On 4/7/2006 at 1:02pm, Hans wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Sindyr wrote:
This is also a good place to point out that there may in fact exist absolute and fundamental rights regardless of what one society or another perceive, subscribe to, or approve of. Debating the existence or content of actual fundamental and absolute rights is probably beyond the scope of not only this thread but this forum and indeed even this website, but I thought that while everyone was talking about moral relativism, someone should pipe up and point out the possibility that morality and ethics, and certain values, are not "relative" or "shades of grey" but absolute and black and white.
I personally have no problem. In my real-life, I do believe in a set of fundamental and absolute moral values that apply universally. As you say, this is not the place to debate it. My point was simply to point out that what a SOCIETY believes is heroic or villainous may be very different from society to society. Whether that society is right or wrong by some higher standard is a separate question; in fact, it is a question that can be explored through role-playing characters in that society..
On 4/7/2006 at 3:38pm, Sindyr wrote:
RE: Re: Morality or When is a Superhero not a Superhero?
Hans and Tux - Good points all.
Would love to game with you guys. Unfortunately, am never able to go to conventions. :(