Umbriere - that's why Lex Luthor will ultimately be revealed as the hero.
Quick, count the number of times he's killed someone and the number of times he's saved the world!
Yeah, so can we skip the ones from 60+ years ago when the character and the entire comics scene was entirely different? And technically it's not the same person anyway.
Of course the current Superman isn't the same person as the silver age one either. He hasn't killed anyone.Killing the 3 phantom zone criminals in the pocket universe may not have had any legal basis. OTOH, they'd killed everyone on that Earth. Personally responsible for the death of billions. There was no other legal authority other than Superman, since there was no one else left alive. If you want to call it murder, go ahead, but I think you're stretching it.
It was absolutely not casual or wanton though.And that's the only modern instance I know in the actual comics canon.
Which current Superman are you talking about? Because Man of Steel has Superman very definitely killing someone, and that came out last year.
That's the main problem with even using Superman as an example; if you're talking about the entire franchise in general, then Superman is a mass-murdering psychopath who probably deserves to die many times over. But if you're going to talk about a particular instance, you have to pick which of the seventeen to eighteen incarnations you're talking about (and that's not even counting the variant Supermans from the times he's been dead, other universes, and such).
Finally, I don't see how killing an entire alternate world provokes the Superman in this world with them trying to enter; he could have easily just blocked their entry or trapped them in their world. Given that he decided to kill them instead of imprisoning them and he didn't even try to see if there was any legal authority in their universe that could pass judgement, "wanton" is an accurate description of his actions. He made no effort to bring them to justice or show mercy; he simply killed them, despite his vow not to kill. That is what makes it murder.
So, maybe a different thread discussing the levels to which we believe Superman to be murderous?
"Truth, Justice and the American Way"?
Sounds like murderhobos. [Quickly ducks, likely for months of patriotic opprobrium and posturing.]
So, maybe a different thread discussing the levels to which we believe Superman to be murderous?
I apologize for the derail. I'll see if I can steer it back on topic.
Mass murdering psychopath? Now I now you're not even vaguely serious.
You're right; I wasn't. I was using hyperbole. But, at the same time, someone could actually justify that stance entirely on a serious note (and there's an entire website devoted to doing so) using the comics and movies.
Check out the alternate universe stories. A lot of them involve Superman killing individuals, groups of people, nations, entire planets... If you include all of those in your judgement, Superman comes out as one of the greatest monsters to ever live.
The writers of that comic have spent decades writing stories about exactly how much of a monster Superman could truly be if he put his mind to it, with none of them canon but serving as excellent examples of why he must be a do-gooder.
But at the same time, that serves as an excellent reason as to why he's a bad example for defining what a murderhobo is and what a murderhobo isn't. There's too much in the Superman franchise that can be used to justify the idea that he's a murderhobo, using the definition provided on the previous page. Which was my entire point.
Edit: Occurred to me how one sentence sounded and I corrected it. I didn't want to give the impression of something I didn't actually intend.
|
Now I'll admit I havent seen Christopher Reeves' Superman II movie in over 20 yrs but I dont remember any mention of killing. Now you can 'assume' that the misty overed areas in the fortress were bottomless pits......or you can 'assume' that the mist covered ramps that lead to cells.
Top 5 things I recall from Superman 2:
1. "Kneed before Zod!"
2. That Texan sheriff's British child.
3. Ursa
4. "Planet Houston"
5. Superman's apparent ability to throw a cellophane "S" at people.
Also, Superman vs. The Elite is probably the best example one might want to go with for a Superman vs. murderhobo-mentality argument.
My dad killing that "Jap Sniper" in WWII was murder, then?Using a racial slur is always an excellent way to make your point.
Psst? See those little "" things? They are called "quote marks" and indicate a quotation. Which is why "Japs Bomb Pearl Harbor" is a news quote and not a "racial slur".
[
Pick a Superman comic from the 1940s. Any of them. If he wasn't killing them, he was making it pretty clear he had no moral compunctions against torture..
Ok, pick one. Which issue and one what page does he torture? I remember nothing of the sort. Mind you, there are some issues where he kills a lot of Nazis, but it was War, you know.
Now I'll admit I havent seen Christopher Reeves' Superman II movie in over 20 yrs but I dont remember any mention of killing. Now you can 'assume' that the misty overed areas in the fortress were bottomless pits......or you can 'assume' that the mist covered ramps that lead to cells.
True, and a trope from that genre is that if you don;t see the body, they ain't dead... and even then.... thereby by the rules of that canon- Supes never killed nobody. ipso facto.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverFoundTheBody
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GROGNARD FIIIIGGGHHHHTTT!5 gold on it ending in a draw due to beard entanglement.
10 platinum on it ending on a disqualification due to weapon speed infringement, weapon vs. AC adjustment or miscalculated THACO.
Hey! A really good grognard has no use for THAC0! Don't you remember the old matrices in the DMG with the efreet on the cover? Oh, yeah- and I raise 5 EP!
Ok, pick one. Which issue and one what page does he torture? I remember nothing of the sort. Mind you, there are some issues where he kills a lot of Nazis, but it was War, you know.[
Pick a Superman comic from the 1940s. Any of them. If he wasn't killing them, he was making it pretty clear he had no moral compunctions against torture..
I never said he did torture, but I can see how you could get that idea from my wording. I apologize for the implication that he did actually torture.
Unless, of course, you count using kryptonite against those weak to it as torture, but in that case the example I would be providing is not from that era, and thus not proof he actually did torture during the period I was referring to. There's also the things he did to Jimmy Olsen, but those again are not from that era (and they are mostly only psychological abuse and were all related to keeping his secret identity or Jimmy safe), and again not evidence.
Hey! A really good grognard has no use for THAC0! Don't you remember the old matrices in the DMG with the efreet on the cover? Oh, yeah- and I raise 5 EP!
[Throws down grognard hat and stomps on it.]
Though to be fair, however much THACO maybe new fangled nonsense, the other two mechanics were from the PH of the same edition as the to hit matrices (the one bearing the cover with the dozen plus PC's, henchman and hirelings dragging out dead bodies and prying demon god statue's bejewelled eyes out with crowbars. I think.)Real grognards roll on assassination tables. Or are Fighting Men. Or rather than attack the castle front-on, dig underneath the ground, encounter a dungeon and invent RPG's...
If my AD&D stuff weren't in a room with an angry wife, I'd go fetch my DMG to quote a page number for the to-hit matrices. It wouldn't take long, since my DMG came with page markers (in the form of those sticky, colored plastic things in which to stick a small piece of paper) from it's previous owner*.
*Not that I got it from eBay, or something, I was young and my parents didn't want to buy me a new one.
Are you even 9th (name) level? Just playing. I kind of like the old matrices- especially for saves "roll vs. rods/staves/wands!"
But now I'm getting off of the "Murderhobo" topic.
|
There is a good reason Superman won't actually go rogue for any length of time. That reason... is called Batman, and Batman could probably take Superman down if he reaaaaallllllyyyy had to. That brofist thing they have going on would probably make him hesitate -- hesitance could cost him dearly on that -- but were he to get over it, Superman would probably wind up in the phantom zone. Batman was the one that rebuilt device used to open it, after all. I imagine that with his eidetic memory, he still fully recalls in detail how to build that stuff.
And now back on topic. Murderhobo murderhobo *ahem* murder hobo, murderhobo murderhobo. Murderhobo? The Skywalker family are the REAL murderhobos.
Lets see some examples of supermans wanton killing, please.In addition to the movie example that Kthulhu posted...
Pick a Superman comic from the 1940s. Any of them. If he wasn't killing them, he was making it pretty clear he had no moral compunctions against torture.
Then there's the Superman 22 from the Post-Crisis era, where he confronts the Phantom Zone and kills them using Kryptonite from their universe. In fact, he's the one who judged them to be deserving death, so there was no legal basis at all for his actions.
Those are just the ones I found in a one minute Google search. The list of people Superman has killed is massively, massively longer.
Yeah, so can we skip the ones from 60+ years ago when the character and the entire comics scene was entirely different? And technically it's not the same person anyway.
Of course the current Superman isn't the same person as the silver age one either. He hasn't killed anyone.Killing the 3 phantom zone criminals in the pocket universe may not have had any legal basis. OTOH, they'd killed everyone on that Earth. Personally responsible for the death of billions. There was no other legal authority other than Superman, since there was no one else left alive. If you want to call it murder, go ahead, but I think you're stretching it.
It was absolutely not casual or wanton though.And that's the only modern instance I know in the actual comics canon.
sorry the Jeff. I'm usually with you on this topic, but I'm against selective memory with iconic characters. Yes, he killed people. Yes, it was Superman. No, it wasn't a dream sequence. Yes, it was the character from the time many reference him as a moral figure/icon. It happened.
|
Again please give examples of Superman killing, other then Man of Steel. It doesnt have to be links but that would help. List the comic number and quote.
Alternate universe stuff doesnt count as that Superman isnt the one most people think of when they think of Superman. Alternate universes are 'what if'.
And the way I see things, killing isnt murder. See my thread on the subject of killing and murder.
Again please give examples of Superman killing, other then Man of Steel. It doesnt have to be links but that would help. List the comic number and quote.
Old superman was a jerk. According to that cracked article anyway, was the first thing I found.
Again please give examples of Superman killing, other then Man of Steel. It doesnt have to be links but that would help. List the comic number and quote.
Alternate universe stuff doesnt count as that Superman isnt the one most people think of when they think of Superman. Alternate universes are 'what if'.
And the way I see things, killing isnt murder. See my thread on the subject of killing and murder.
I didn't want to link to these pages, but I see it's a good idea to do so.
These pages don't just deal with Superman, but he is their primary target. They pretty much deal with the entire line of DC heroes; Superman is the one they demonstrate to be a jerk the most, with Batman a close second. Wonder Woman is usually shown being a victim of the original artist's... proclivities... and being a way of slipping things past the censor.
Note a lot of the content here is alternate-universe... but a lot of it also isn't.
Website.
Their tumblr, which holds all of the recent updates
Those demonstrate exactly why we shouldn't use superheroes as examples for what is and what is not a murderhobo. And have fun reading through the examples... there's probably a couple thousand for Superman alone.
So, how about a better example? Like John McCain from Die Hard? Yes, he unleashes an amount of destruction that reaches superhuman levels in some of those movies (I'm pretending the last one doesn't exist)... but he's also a law enforcement officer trying to do the right thing. In every depiction, he can be shown trying to stop criminals. Yes, he also kills people... but he hasn't been depicted as killing people just to protect a secret. He is a case where, a lot of the time, the destruction he unleashes is unavoidable... which, I think, is the kind of example DrDeth was trying to go for.
|
|
Kryptonite doesn't stop him from just ramming Batman at 5000 miles per hour.Superman could outright murder batman with incredible ease if he wanted to.Not really. Batman always has kryptonite. And plot immunity.
True, but the fact that Batman reinforced his batcave with a plothax metal so strong that even Superman can't put a dent in it (confirmed by Superman by the way) does prevent that. The fact that he's created armor out of this same substance, armor that includes an inertial dampening field to negate incoming force to boot, also helps.
|
|
And the way I see things, killing isnt murder. See my thread on the subject of killing and murder.
The American legal system would like a word with you. Very rarely does someone get off with manslaughter even if they had a good reason to end another person's life. The legal system tends to look at any form of killing other than accidental or self-defense as being murder, and half the time accidental slayings still get treated as murder.
Bearing that in mind, about 90% of fights you encounter in written materials (and indeed in purely home games from my and many others' experiences) are started by the PCs. Sure, the target might be Darth Evil McBadGuy, but they attacked first.
The American legal system would like a word with you.
And the way I see things, killing isnt murder. See my thread on the subject of killing and murder.
The American legal system has no bearing on a Fantasy game, set in another universe, one guided by medieval principles of law. There were no police to speak of back then, no detectives, etc. Often, "beyond the pale" Knights, Lords and such had full rights of High, Middle and Low Justice. If some local lord has set bounties on the orc tribe that's been raiding in his area, the Adventurers can kill them with legal impunity. Pretty much in medieval times, the equivalent of a Paladin would have free reign to kill bandits or infidels on sight.
Heck, just decades ago, "Wanted Dead or Alive" was posted as a reward on posters. Dillinger for example.
Even in The American legal system, police do kill others in the line of duty and of course during war, the enemy is fair game.
|
|
There's a big difference between "during war" and "well, the party walked up to this bad guy that they have no real proof is a bad guy and killed him with extreme prejudice. The townsfolk said he was a bad person. Nobody knows why those adventurers believed'em, but we're down a mayor now!"
In any case, I'm aware that the American legal system has little bearing. It was mentioned to illustrate a point, the same point that rang true in medieval times. You would still be put to death if arrested for killing another, even if it was an accident or self-defense. Exceptions were even rarer back then. But then, as you said, there really weren't enough constables or constabularies to keep everyone in line.
|
|
If your character is acting like a murder-hobo, you have no one to blame but yourself.
In my Razor Coast game, I have a cleric of the Turtle who gives away gold to the local temple of quell, in excess of thousands.
When they rescued a child and returned her to her parents, he turned down the gift they offered in return and gave them money instead.
O_O you actually give gold away, and turn down gifts? Are you sure you're playing the game right TOZ? I jest, this would be rare in any of the games I run. The PCs revel in looting the deceased, even their own, and using that loot as needed or by getting new shiny things.
|
|
O_O you actually give gold away, and turn down gifts? Are you sure you're playing the game right TOZ? I jest, this would be rare in any of the games I run. The PCs revel in looting the deceased, even their own, and using that loot as needed or by getting new shiny things.If your character is acting like a murder-hobo, you have no one to blame but yourself.
In my Razor Coast game, I have a cleric of the Turtle who gives away gold to the local temple of quell, in excess of thousands.
When they rescued a child and returned her to her parents, he turned down the gift they offered in return and gave them money instead.
I honestly prefer to respectfully bury deceased enemies with their clothes still on. And with their gear, provided it isn't an Amulet Of Returning As A Vampire or something.
|
|
I honestly prefer to respectfully bury deceased enemies with their clothes still on. And with their gear, provided it isn't an Amulet Of Returning As A Vampire or something.O_O you actually give gold away, and turn down gifts? Are you sure you're playing the game right TOZ? I jest, this would be rare in any of the games I run. The PCs revel in looting the deceased, even their own, and using that loot as needed or by getting new shiny things.If your character is acting like a murder-hobo, you have no one to blame but yourself.
In my Razor Coast game, I have a cleric of the Turtle who gives away gold to the local temple of quell, in excess of thousands.
When they rescued a child and returned her to her parents, he turned down the gift they offered in return and gave them money instead.
I think that would be too much work for some (my) players. Better to leave the near naked corpses of the defeated to bask in the sun. If you're the goblin of the party you suggest burning all the dead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly prefer to respectfully bury deceased enemies with their clothes still on. And with their gear, provided it isn't an Amulet Of Returning As A Vampire or something.
That's the sort of amulet you keep for yourself to wear in case you die later on :P
I honestly prefer to respectfully bury deceased enemies with their clothes still on. And with their gear, provided it isn't an Amulet Of Returning As A Vampire or something.That's the sort of amulet you keep for yourself to wear in case you die later on :P
Or give to the paladin while mis-identifying what it is if the player has been playing them as lawful stupid.
|
|
There's a big difference between "during war" and "well, the party walked up to this bad guy that they have no real proof is a bad guy and killed him with extreme prejudice. The townsfolk said he was a bad person. Nobody knows why those adventurers believed'em, but we're down a mayor now!"
There was plenty of proof (I planted it myself)and it wasnt extreme prejudice (just extreme violence) and I offered to be mayor if they wanted one.
The example you give is pretty much a murderhobo example. of course none of my adventurer act that way.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The American legal system has no bearing on a Fantasy game, set in another universe, one guided by medieval principles of law. There were no police to speak of back then, no detectives, etc. Often, "beyond the pale" Knights, Lords and such had full rights of High, Middle and Low Justice. If some local lord has set bounties on the orc tribe that's been raiding in his area, the Adventurers can kill them with legal impunity. Pretty much in medieval times, the equivalent of a Paladin would have free reign to kill bandits or infidels on sight.Heck, just decades ago, "Wanted Dead or Alive" was posted as a reward on posters. Dillinger for example.
Even in The American legal system, police do kill others in the line of duty and of course during war, the enemy is fair game.
One of the few times that I and DrDeth are in complete agreement. Gamers who play the game forget that modern sensiabilties and our legal system have no bearing in a fantasy rpg. Otherwise adventuring parties would be guilty of breaking and entering everytime they go into a dungeon or castle to face the BBEG.
More generally, the standard rules don't apply in any kind of adventure fiction, even in modern settings. If the standard legal approaches were working, there'd be no need for adventurers.
There might be strict legal standards in parts of the fantasy setting, but that's not where you adventure. Or you have some sort of deal with the authorities. Or the authorities are the bad guys. I mean, obviously the evil overlord is going to make it illegal to break into his castle to overthrow his rule. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
What if adventurers themselves were part of the system of legal approaches, specifically as people who take down unusual or extraordinary threats? Such an approach has existed repeatedly in real life, so it only makes sense that a fantasy legal system that may need to dispense justice against a dragon would have the option of hiring people of extraordinary skill to go dispense said justice.
It creates a scenario that both supports the roleplayed scenario of adventurers going out and slaying monsters or invading dungeons while at the same time creating a good reason as to why shopkeepers and legal authorities wouldn't ask any questions about a group of people who left with an empty wagon and returned with it loaded down with items to sell. After all, unless they have some reason to suspect otherwise, they would just assume the adventurers were out doing something completely legal. And it brings in line the fantasy setting with the standard rules of law in such a way that creates an even more believable scenario.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a big difference between "during war" and "well, the party walked up to this bad guy that they have no real proof is a bad guy and killed him with extreme prejudice. The townsfolk said he was a bad person. Nobody knows why those adventurers believed'em, but we're down a mayor now!"
But then, as you said, there really weren't enough constables or constabularies to keep everyone in line.
In Medieval setting, if the local baron said "There are bandits attacking my people- bring me their heads and I'll give you this bag of gold"- he as the Duly designated authority, with the rights of High Middle and Low justice- has just served a death warrant on the bandits. The adventurers now have free reign within the law to kill the bandits. If a Shire-reeve, aka a Sheriff called for a "hue and cry" after a criminal, ordinary citizens were not only allowed to- but were required to under force of law- to take up arms and bring the perp to justice or kill him.
Just like if 150 years ago a local Sheriff or Judge posted a "Wanted dead or Alive" reward for a criminal- right here in America. A "Bounty Hunter" - which was just a citizen- could shoot that criminal down like a dog and not only be within the law, but get paid for it.
Thats just the way justice worked. If Thief-takers and bounty hunters weren't around to take down the bandits, it rarely got done. Thief-takers and bounty hunters were a intergral part of the justice system.
So, here's the difference between adventurers and murderhobos:
Local Baron "Bring me the heads of those bandits, and I give you this bag of gold!" (Players to DM: "Is it a pretty big bag?" DM:"It looks heavy and full.") PC's "Yes, your Lordship, we'll do it!".
Vs
Local Baron "Bring me the heads of those bandits, and I give you this bag of gold!" (Players to DM: "Is it a pretty big bag?" DM:"It looks heavy and full.") Players: "Ok, we kill the baron and take the bag!- then kill all the witnesses, loot the village and burn it. Do we get eps for the farm animals?"
There's the difference between Adventurers and "murderhobos".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, its been ages since I've played a game where I was actually told what to kill by an authority figure. Usually its some form of collateral hunting for something or exploring or it tried to stab me first.
I'm 100% sure that Deth has a different idea of murderhobo playstyle than me since he keeps putting it in the worst possible light he can.
Do people really still have these games where they come across a hole in the ground and their only motivation for entering and killing everyone is pure greed? Even before I started running AP's, my homebrewn campaigns always put forward grander motivations like "you have a comission from the ruler of the land to check out that den of monsters and put a stop to their actually happening depredations against the innocent citizens of our (semi-)civilized lands".
Do people really still have these games where they come across a hole in the ground and their only motivation for entering and killing everyone is pure greed?
Well, adventure and macguffin. Plenty of reasons besides actual authority telling you to, and plenty of them aren't so awful as pure greed or just to kill everything.
Do people really still have these games where they come across a hole in the ground and their only motivation for entering and killing everyone is pure greed?
There are other kinds? :)
Either that or people reaaaaly don't pay attention during the mission briefing.