[ QUOTE ]
(1) Is it right to kill someone for a loaf of bread?
(2) Is it right for a mn who is starving to death to steal a loaf of bread?
Ethics is mostly connundrums, Tovarisch 
[/ QUOTE ]
This is very simple for me, at least. I believe "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal". I don't bend those rules based on survival or comfort. To me they certainly are not conundrums. Right and wrong is very simple I think.
But still, you seemed to have a problem with your hero's feeling guilty or something for being vigilante's and taking away the freedoms of whoever they persecute. I mean, that looked like the entire premise of your first post. And then you reply to me telling me your hero's are content in what they do and 100% committed to their own cause. So I ask, was your thesis based on your own feelings or your characters' feelings? If the latter, then my original statement about you was correct and I am not 100% wrong. If the former, then you contradict yourself by writing statements you characters do not believe.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are good people; and there are bad people; and CoH lets you easily see who the bad guys are; so you don't have to feel guilty when you smack them around.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is far less clear. The player's **assume** they are "the good guys", and thus *assume** anyone they are put against are "the bad guys" but there is no mission statement from the devs that this is so. Such comforting assumptions in the real world often lead to wars. This was my point about "adopting labels" in the original post.
[/ QUOTE ]
You're still not reading my friend. Most of the missions you get carefully explain why the bad guys are bad guys and why conventional methods have not worked and why a superhero has been assigned to the case. You can call this your "mission statement from the dev's" if you like but I don't see why you require it in order to rationalize a silly game.
[ QUOTE ]
Meh, today I stopped Nemesis from holding Earth hostage with a weather control device, then I broke into one of his labs and stole a "doomsday" device that was used to kill 70% of an alternate worlds population. After that, I traveled to this dead world and set up blockers preventing Nemesis from using it as a base of operations.
Afterwards, I took to the streets and arrested 45 Nemesis, the likes of which included a variety of robots, mechs, and armed paramilitary, all which fired upon me first. They all possessed illegal weapons, which included fully automatic weapons and chemical weapons. They also fired these weapons within 100 yards of a residence, and with civilian foot traffic nearby.
Then, my contact informed me that Nemesis had created automatons to infiltrate the Council (another illegal paramilitary group). I broke into that base as well, and took into custody all persons on the premise.
I fail to see where I did anything that is morally or legally a poor choice.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was my point too. The OP wasn't reading the mission guidelines and briefings. Most of them explain in good detail why you have been assigned to each case and why conventional means have been exhausted or otherwise will not suffice. There are cases when brute force is required and the best solution, thus the premise of the entire game.
"Stop!...... Or I'll say stop again!"
BTW: I took this picture in order to bring a bit of reality back into a game. "who's side are they on?"
Generally your hunt missions don't have you going out and arresting people on the streets randomly. Usually the story context is that you're "questioning" them to learn the details of a bigger plot. Right or wrong, gathering information by intimidation is a pretty standard practice of superheroes and vigilanties in general. The game doesn't do the best job of showing this once you actually get the information, but that is the concept.
I question the "assaulting villains on the street" concept myself. I think a large part of it has to do with the magnitude of threats that many of these groups present. Remember, this is a society with villainous groups who actively practice coordinated violence, murder and social uphieval. These groups work towards the total distruction of the city/world. In the instance where they succeed, large sections of the city are made unliviable and, I imagine, large sections of the population are killed. Look at Dark Astoria (BP), Eden (DE), Boomtown (Rikti), or more recently Siren's Call (Arachnos) for examples of what happens when these groups aren't stopped.
And I think that's the difference. The people on the street dressed in CoT ceremonial robes or Council combat armor clearly associate themselves with an organization that actively practices mass destruction and murder. I imagine, if nothing else, these people can be charged with conspiracy. Simply put, if the Boy Scouts of America, as an organization, started leveling multiple city blocks to promote their ideals, you'd NEVER see me in uniform again. I'd fully expect to be arrested on the spot.
That said, there are a few groups I question currently. Hellions and Skulls are generally up to no good, but occassionally seem innocent enough (Perez is bad for this). I'm not fond of hunting Lost; generally speaking, stabbing bums isn't particularly heroic. I think the worst offender is Crey. Not only are these part of a sanctioned organization, but 90% of the time they're really doing nothing wrong, heck, alf the time their being treated by medics. Most Crey hunting missions refer to them "harrassing the population in Bricks" or something like that. I'd like to see them doing things like that, bullying people for money, dumping toxic waste, and other "questionable" activities.
[ QUOTE ]
Here's another thought to chew on. What party, Republican or Democrat, seems to be infringing on our freedoms more? While it may seem the ones coming from the right are more numerous, we actually get more restrictions from the left. The ones coming from the right tend to be more about national security while the ones from the left tend to be more domestic issues. One example that is affecting just the gaming comminity is that we got bills going through Congress that will make games such as CoH or other violent games be unable to be sold. There's a restriction on our freedoms right there. Just look around the country and you'll see plenty of our freedoms being restricted on the basis of "equality" for all. As for brainwashing tools for different sides of the government, what do you think the liberal media has done?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am commenting solely on "bills going through Congress that will make games such as CoH or other violent games be unable to be sold."
These bills exist solely on the misguided belief of "extremists" [probably not the word I should use] in America that believe violent video games are the cause of the increased violence among the youth of America. I have been playing "violent" video games for many, many years [I'll be 47 this year] and I personally have no use for guns, and the only violence I use is to defend myself. If video games were the root cause of the violence amongst today's youth then I would expect more people my age to be similarly violent. The facts do not bear out the reasoning behind these bills.
I believe the real problem with today's youth is lack of parental supervision. I know for a fact that there a children out there whose parents have no idea where they are, and truthfully do not care as long as they are not bothering them. A large part of their environment is therefore missing, and thus a great deal of moral values are missing. It's for America's parents to take responsibility for the actions of their children. What part violent video games plays in this can be controlled them, since common sense should tell most people that a game is not real life.
***DONS FLAME PROOF SUIT***
I have to admit that the original post in this thread was very well written and thought out. And there are definately some points that are worth thinking about. However, I can't help but get the feeling that the OP has a political agenda that he is trying to put forth. That he reaches the conclusion, obviously contrary to the intent of both games, that Paragon City is authoritarian, oppressive, and unquestioning, (even evil) and that the Rogue Isles is free, individualistic, and governed in a "frontier" style (although certainly not democratic) would seem to support this.
While there has certainly been a loss of freedom in the institution of registered heroes (The Might Makes Right Act was overturned, I believe, but other later laws do seem contrary to the spirit of the Constitution) at the same time I think it's wrong to characterize heroes as going around "hunting down and assaulting" innocent people in violation of their human rights. First of all, we know for a fact that in a game sense, no one is allowed to die. The level of violence in the game is a matter of option; there are some who believe that what you see on the screen is not necessarily what is really happening, and you can decide that your character is killing his foes, or conversely, that he is NOT beating his opponents senseless, but talking to them, (maybe even interrogating them, depending on how much force you want to put behind that) and resorting to violence only after all else fails.
Likewise, as I have pointed out here MANY times before, we are not talking about average citizens on the street. Even the lowly gang members that superheroes start out going up against are SUPER POWERED INDIVIDUALS, meaning that they have resistances and strength beyond that of ordinary humans. The superhero is in a moderate amount of danger when he confronts a supervillain, and he can be assured that if he uses his powers, the chances are that he will most likely NOT do unacceptable damage to him. One could argue that a super punch or a machine gun to the gut to a supervillain is no more "assault" than a slap across the face to a normal human.
The legal term "assault" typically does not try to characterize an amount of damage that is required to make it "assault", but instead considers the INTENT of the act. When Superman lets some thugs shoot at him, to demonstrate they can't hurt them, and then knocks them out with a simple tap to the head, that isn't really "assault" since it is not Superman's intent to hurt them. Quite the contrary, in fact, Superman is usually acting to prevent the thugs from hurting themselves accidently, as they shoot at him. He may simply disarm them and leave them with no way to defend themselves, which as we said above, is a possible interpretation of how your hero acts, if that's the way you want it to be.
In addition, the game makes it clear that when they DO see you, the first reaction of every criminal is to attack you. Even if it could be characterized as assault, your actions in fighting back are clearly self defense, both from the language your foes use when they attack (often saying something like "I'm gonna collect me a mask") and their actions in attacking you. You can attack before a foe is "aggroed", but that's a game concept and it is useful from a gameplay standpoint to attack first. That doesn't mean you would do the same in real life, and more importantly, as your foes are actually pre-programmed AI, you know what their reaction will be anyway.
Similarly, we have super powered individuals, who even the police are powerless to stop, committing petty crimes and harassing the citizens. Most of the "talking to others" is typically discussing crimes or drug sales and is thus illegal, and even the "political speeches" may be against the law. You are allowed to speak freely in this country, yes, but you must also do it responsibly. I kind of doubt the Council warns the city first about their "demonstrations", to make sure they are orderly and peaceful.
As for the gangs and other supervillain groups being "unpopular with the government", I don't think they're all that popular with the people, either. They go around mugging people, breaking and entering, and extorting money and possibly even other "favors". (We haven't seen a [censored] in game, but I'm guessing that's because of the rating)
Finally, the fact is, once a villain is arrested, there is no reason to think that he is NOT given his legal rights to a trial. There is far more violation of human rights in CoV, where villains regularly kidnap normal humans -- who often do NOT have super powers -- and deliver them to torture or worse. Other villains you come across are beaten, probably with far less restraint than a hero would show, and left to fend for themselves if they are lucky enough to be saved by the teleport system. In fact, a number of times your Contacts imply that you should eliminate your adversaries, not using the word kill, I believe, but still making it clear that the victims should not be left alive to talk.
Of course, you still have the flexibility to interpret what you do with those orders within the concept of your character. I personally prefer the idea that both Paragon City and the Rogue Isle have their light and their dark sides, and one of my characters, Bloodwolf, is both a hero and a villain, crossing over between the two to root out corruption WHEREVER it occurs. But at least in Paragon City, you can assume that the people you defeat are, if not freed, at least given hospital care and taken care of while in prison. And since they are not some sort of political activists being imprisoned for their beliefs, but super powered criminals using their abilities to harm and exploit people who are weaker than them and unable to defend themselves against such great power, that's where they belong...
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. CoH/CoV is a world where such power is common. Notions of "justice" and "rights" have to take that into account.
[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, the authorities turn a blind eye to many illegal activities rather than face the alternative: superpowered individuals breaking the law and terrorizing citizens without being opposed by superhuman deputies.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is the reason for the Citizen Crime Fighting Act, even though as I said in the last post it may be in violation of the Constitution. The point is, though, not ALL superheroes step over that line. Many of them could be assumed to be acting only in self defense while a select few use considerably more violence because of a PERSONAL choice to try and discourage crime by making it more "painful".
Most of my characters would fall into the first category. In fact, of my five main characters, at least three of them would NEVER attack first. Joe Everyman, because of his concept, would make HIMSELF a mugging victim and then fight back. Sandy also would never be the first to attack, she hates fighting, and would beg the criminal not to fight. Jade Dragon typically would also use his powers to restrain the victim, and only harm him as a last resort. That leaves Blue Diamond, who will cheerfully beat a bad guy to a bloody pulp. But as it's not his style to sneak up on someone, he would most likely be attacked first.
Bloodwolf is the one exception. He would definately strike first, strike hard, and cause enough pain to hopefully make the villain think twice about hurting anyone ever again. But that's his character, he's Batman, essentially. I can't see the authorities of Paragon City condoning his actions, and in fact he doesn't care. He doesn't trust them, either, and it's very unlikely they could bring him to justice if they did decide to persecute him for his more vigilante tactics.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's another thought to chew on. What party, Republican or Democrat, seems to be infringing on our freedoms more? While it may seem the ones coming from the right are more numerous, we actually get more restrictions from the left. The ones coming from the right tend to be more about national security while the ones from the left tend to be more domestic issues. One example that is affecting just the gaming comminity is that we got bills going through Congress that will make games such as CoH or other violent games be unable to be sold. There's a restriction on our freedoms right there. Just look around the country and you'll see plenty of our freedoms being restricted on the basis of "equality" for all. As for brainwashing tools for different sides of the government, what do you think the liberal media has done?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am commenting solely on "bills going through Congress that will make games such as CoH or other violent games be unable to be sold."
These bills exist solely on the misguided belief of "extremists" [probably not the word I should use] in America that believe violent video games are the cause of the increased violence among the youth of America. I have been playing "violent" video games for many, many years [I'll be 47 this year] and I personally have no use for guns, and the only violence I use is to defend myself. If video games were the root cause of the violence amongst today's youth then I would expect more people my age to be similarly violent. The facts do not bear out the reasoning behind these bills.
I believe the real problem with today's youth is lack of parental supervision. I know for a fact that there a children out there whose parents have no idea where they are, and truthfully do not care as long as they are not bothering them. A large part of their environment is therefore missing, and thus a great deal of moral values are missing. It's for America's parents to take responsibility for the actions of their children. What part violent video games plays in this can be controlled them, since common sense should tell most people that a game is not real life.
***DONS FLAME PROOF SUIT***
[/ QUOTE ]
why the flame proof suit? parents are the things that should be watching what their kids are doing, not the government. the majority of these bills based off of the possibility they might cause kids to shoot others just takes away accountability and responsibility from the person who did the deed. if some kid shoots up others and people blame it on the games he played, how did he get the game in the first place? most likely because his parents bought it and didn't pay attention to what was going in their kid's head.
This is not a type of discussion I expected to see on the COH/V Forum, but it sure did reel me in.
Id like to offer my take on the whole thing. Being a COV-only player, I dont exactly know how things work in the COH world. Honestly, I dont much wonder. I bought COV because I dont want to be bound to moral and administrative restrictions. I just want to wreak my own brand of havoc, crush my enemies, hear the lamentation of their women, etc.; I did, and I still do. Ive spent time flying among the highest rooftops of Aeon City, just to ragdoll some poor sucker 1000 yards below. In a busy square, I ungraciously assaulted a Crey PR Specialist, just because a NPC was taking his picture. I confused a pair of patrolling Longbow in engaged in friendly conversation, and stayed around to make sure they burned themselves fully to death. Now thats not all I do, but its a part of it (believe it or not, I actually felt guilty once or twice for some of the more vicious attacks, especially against the Lost, who really seem to want to be left alone).
But guess what? As a villain, I cant target NPCs. As a villain, I can ONLY target other villains. Crey, Tsoo, Lost heroes and villains are fighting the same enemies, more or less, and probably with very limited exception (Longbow, Wyvren, what have you). Youd think a villain would have absolute free reign enough at least to bonesmash a contact giving you [censored] missions on the far corner of the map
Really, how hard would it be to make all un-interactible NPCs one-shot punching bags with say, 10 HP, and amplified ragdoll physics? So, no, COV is not truly free. Its no GTA3, for sure. And as I villain, I seem to be spending a lot of time rescuing people, and doing helpful things for other factions.
Dr. Percy (Contact): So, you go in, rescue the Rikti experimentation captives and recover the data disk? Kapeesh? Get to it then!
- Accept this mission.
- Ask about this contact.
- Ask what else is going on.
- Placate, Buildup and Assasin-Strike Dr. Percy in her eye and take her purse.
There is a great amount of safety built in to the COX universe. Id be willing to bet that COH is primarily marketed towards individuals that really, at the core of everything, just want to spectacularly pummel enemies with a character they can customize and identify with. And, if they chose COH over COV, they want their violence morally justified. But you still have use your own imagination. Thats why the moral justification is kept ambiguous in nature, and for the most part, inconspicuous. Because, as the original poster stated, its a fine, fine line between hero and villain. In fact, heroes, that Hellion you just upper-cutted 30 feet into the cool blue sky had a long time girlfriend and newborn baby-boy. Yeah, hed made some bad choices, but hes had a hard life (and hes only 19!). He had a name too, but now hes tomato-sauce on 35th and Main. Poor kid. See - that much personal knowledge makes it kinda hard to serve conscience-free headsplitters daily. It detracts from the games (basic) marketed purpose. I bet the developers like amorphousness, and the majority of subscribers have probably never questioned it. While the original posters point is valid, and true, it looks too deeply into the issue for the game to remain fun as intended (I think, at least).
[ QUOTE ]
This is not a type of discussion I expected to see on the COH/V Forum, but it sure did reel me in.
Id like to offer my take on the whole thing. Being a COV-only player, I dont exactly know how things work in the COH world. Honestly, I dont much wonder. I bought COV because I dont want to be bound to moral and administrative restrictions. I just want to wreak my own brand of havoc, crush my enemies, hear the lamentation of their women, etc.; I did, and I still do. Ive spent time flying among the highest rooftops of Aeon City, just to ragdoll some poor sucker 1000 yards below. In a busy square, I ungraciously assaulted a Crey PR Specialist, just because a NPC was taking his picture. I confused a pair of patrolling Longbow in engaged in friendly conversation, and stayed around to make sure they burned themselves fully to death. Now thats not all I do, but its a part of it (believe it or not, I actually felt guilty once or twice for some of the more vicious attacks, especially against the Lost, who really seem to want to be left alone).
But guess what? As a villain, I cant target NPCs. As a villain, I can ONLY target other villains. Crey, Tsoo, Lost heroes and villains are fighting the same enemies, more or less, and probably with very limited exception (Longbow, Wyvren, what have you). Youd think a villain would have absolute free reign enough at least to bonesmash a contact giving you [censored] missions on the far corner of the map
Really, how hard would it be to make all un-interactible NPCs one-shot punching bags with say, 10 HP, and amplified ragdoll physics? So, no, COV is not truly free. Its no GTA3, for sure. And as I villain, I seem to be spending a lot of time rescuing people, and doing helpful things for other factions.
Dr. Percy (Contact): So, you go in, rescue the Rikti experimentation captives and recover the data disk? Kapeesh? Get to it then!
- Accept this mission.
- Ask about this contact.
- Ask what else is going on.
- Placate, Buildup and Assasin-Strike Dr. Percy in her eye and take her purse.
There is a great amount of safety built in to the COX universe. Id be willing to bet that COH is primarily marketed towards individuals that really, at the core of everything, just want to spectacularly pummel enemies with a character they can customize and identify with. And, if they chose COH over COV, they want their violence morally justified. But you still have use your own imagination. Thats why the moral justification is kept ambiguous in nature, and for the most part, inconspicuous. Because, as the original poster stated, its a fine, fine line between hero and villain. In fact, heroes, that Hellion you just upper-cutted 30 feet into the cool blue sky had a long time girlfriend and newborn baby-boy. Yeah, hed made some bad choices, but hes had a hard life (and hes only 19!). He had a name too, but now hes tomato-sauce on 35th and Main. Poor kid. See - that much personal knowledge makes it kinda hard to serve conscience-free headsplitters daily. It detracts from the games (basic) marketed purpose. I bet the developers like amorphousness, and the majority of subscribers have probably never questioned it. While the original posters point is valid, and true, it looks too deeply into the issue for the game to remain fun as intended (I think, at least).
[/ QUOTE ]
So, we should be allowed to Assassin's Strike anyone we choose, even those who are trying to help us out, but we should question when our heroes arrest a thug trying to mug someone? What kind of bleeding heart liberal weenie crap is that?
[ QUOTE ]
Because, as the original poster stated, its a fine, fine line between hero and villain. In fact, heroes, that Hellion you just upper-cutted 30 feet into the cool blue sky had a long time girlfriend and newborn baby-boy. Yeah, hed made some bad choices, but hes had a hard life (and hes only 19!). He had a name too, but now hes tomato-sauce on 35th and Main. Poor kid. See - that much personal knowledge makes it kinda hard to serve conscience-free headsplitters daily.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a large problem with our current society. In our search for answers to why bad things happen, we've created a system where no one is personally responsible for their actions. Rather than face the consequences of our decisions, we choose to scapegoat and blame others for our choices. I don't care how hard his life has been, that Hellion chose to mug that woman. His choice brings consequences, and in Paragon City, those consequences often come in the form of a 30 ft uppercut from a sword wielding vigilantee. His choice, his consequence. I don't have a problem with that personally.
I enjoyed reading your post. I play a hero, predominantly because I found playing a villain depressing because of the dreary landscape. Seems like it's always getting dark there.
I also noticed that there are no rights to peaceful assembly in Paragon City, at least not on the surface. I just imagine that each ne'er-do-well that I take out had some outstanding warrant. Notice that none of them ever just give up peacefully. They either try to clobber you or run away.
Something about our own country's constitution - within it, it states that we have the right to overthrow our government with 2/3 of registered voters signatures.
That's all it takes, 66%. Shouldn't be too hard to do, really, IF there were a better alternative. I sure can't think of one.
Thanks for the post, it was an interesting read.
"Most people that have no idea what they are doing have no idea that they don't know what they are doing." - John Cleese
@Ukase
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's another thought to chew on. What party, Republican or Democrat, seems to be infringing on our freedoms more? While it may seem the ones coming from the right are more numerous, we actually get more restrictions from the left. The ones coming from the right tend to be more about national security while the ones from the left tend to be more domestic issues. One example that is affecting just the gaming comminity is that we got bills going through Congress that will make games such as CoH or other violent games be unable to be sold. There's a restriction on our freedoms right there. Just look around the country and you'll see plenty of our freedoms being restricted on the basis of "equality" for all. As for brainwashing tools for different sides of the government, what do you think the liberal media has done?
[/ QUOTE ]
I am commenting solely on "bills going through Congress that will make games such as CoH or other violent games be unable to be sold."
These bills exist solely on the misguided belief of "extremists" [probably not the word I should use] in America that believe violent video games are the cause of the increased violence among the youth of America. I have been playing "violent" video games for many, many years [I'll be 47 this year] and I personally have no use for guns, and the only violence I use is to defend myself. If video games were the root cause of the violence amongst today's youth then I would expect more people my age to be similarly violent. The facts do not bear out the reasoning behind these bills.
I believe the real problem with today's youth is lack of parental supervision. I know for a fact that there a children out there whose parents have no idea where they are, and truthfully do not care as long as they are not bothering them. A large part of their environment is therefore missing, and thus a great deal of moral values are missing. It's for America's parents to take responsibility for the actions of their children. What part violent video games plays in this can be controlled them, since common sense should tell most people that a game is not real life.
***DONS FLAME PROOF SUIT***
[/ QUOTE ]
why the flame proof suit? parents are the things that should be watching what their kids are doing, not the government. the majority of these bills based off of the possibility they might cause kids to shoot others just takes away accountability and responsibility from the person who did the deed. if some kid shoots up others and people blame it on the games he played, how did he get the game in the first place? most likely because his parents bought it and didn't pay attention to what was going in their kid's head.
[/ QUOTE ]
I donned the suit because I have had this discussion with other people and been blasted for my opinion that parents need to take more responsibility for the way their children act.
[those discussion were not on this board, they were face to face. It was such fun.]
Problem:
[ QUOTE ]
A policeman looking for a particualr member of a gang may NOT go out and brutalize all gang memebrs he finds until one talks. Not in our country. Not legally.
[/ QUOTE ]
just one telling quote in this discussion. Paragon City isn't a modern USA city. Its a modern, Silver-Age-like COMIC BOOK city.
In comic books, for over 70 years, thats what comics characters do. They were born in the era when police looked helpless before mobsters and gangsters, in the depression. Vigilanteism is a crime in the real world, but this isn't the real world, its a comic book world.
I think the OP is having trouble accepting the basic precepts of a comic book world. Some of the problem of 'seeming to attack people' comes from the MMO nature of the game. It might be better if you just wandered around until you found a crime in progress, but MMOs always have semi-random spawns of 'monsters' ('mobs' in CoX) to fight. MMOS are about fighting.
My thought on the Heroic's of the Heroes:
Does a Nazi look into the mirror and see a bloodthirsty, irrational racist?
The Heroes of almost all Comics are doing what they see and believe is right. Same as all the villain groups!
In PC and the Etoli Islands, everyone who has power does what he/she feels is best for him/her or those that he/she cares about.
Hero: I hate the hellions, they killed my parents. Therefore, when I see a hellion, I will treat him just the same as what he treated my parents.
"He who holds the biggest gun is king."
Good quote for the Rogue Isles. And currently L.R. holds the biggest gun, because I don't really see a lot of Council Bases, or any more Skyraider mobile bases coming in to challenge L.R.'s supremacy.
[ QUOTE ]
So, we should be allowed to Assassin's Strike anyone we choose, even those who are trying to help us out, but we should question when our heroes arrest a thug trying to mug someone? What kind of bleeding heart liberal weenie crap is that?
[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, you have truly bamboozled me...
I have enough damned proof to beat the crap out of anyone in a known villain outfit who decides it's fun to unload an automatic weapon/fire a load of energy straight into my face when I'm just passing by and not feel anything about it. Hell, some of the villain groups damn well deserve it.
That Council guy giving a speech? He yelled 'Now let's see what we're made of!' to his friends, and they all proceeded to pull out rifles and flamers and open fire.
That Hellion and his gang? Setting fire to a building.
Oh, and for examples of higher-up groups? Where I assault people based on 'hearsay and innuendo'?
Let's take the Malta. I am so not holding back for any of them.
=SPOILER ALERT=
[ QUOTE ]
You found this report on a computer in a Malta Group data center. It's a primer of sorts, for new agents who are assigned to handle meta-human assets. In other words, to help people who are in charge of super-humans under the Malta Group's ruthless control. It encourages handlers to use any tactic necessary, from bribes and threats, to brainwashing, mind control, and kidnapping loved ones. The techniques described are brutal and inhuman, but the rationale is even more chilling. Since these people are citizens of their governments, so the thinking goes, it is their duty to use their extraordinary abilities to defend those governments. Therefore, since it is their duty anyway, those powers rightfuly belong to those governments, and should be used to the best interest of those governments. And it falls to the Malta Group to come in and take control of those abilities when a government fails to do so. All in the interests of freedom, of course. The implications of this twisted logic are chilling.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This disc contains partial records of Malta Group activities. There are many names of meta-humans who have been persuaded or forced to work for Malta. The listed methods of persuasion range from bribery to blackmail to all-out mind control. The list of names from around the world numbers in the hundreds, and you know that it is only a partial list.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This disk contains partial records of Malta Group activities for the past year. not enough detail is given to make absolute connections, but the sheer volume of files is inimaginable. From all around the world, the records list atrocity after atrocity commited in the interests of unethical governments and corporations, or for the Malta Group's own ends. There are records of assassinations of protestors in developing nations, of small governments toppled and larger governments intimidated, of hundreds of people illegally detained. Real democracies destroyed by blackmail and murderm no-cooperative businesses destroyed for competing with the Malta Group's corporate sponsors, and record after record of young meta-humans taken by threat, blackmail, or mind control and forced to work in Malta Group. All of this, this nightmarish tangle of illegal spying, blackmail, and assassinations, all of it carried out in the name of 'freedom' by people who've forgotten what that word means.
[/ QUOTE ]
All found in a Malta hideout, entered with a search warrant and heavily guarded by their goons. So don't you dare tell me any of that is just because 'they're unpopular with the government' or similar.
And for a further point, as other people've stated, you're looking too much into this. This is a comic-book environment city, not a real-world environment city. They follow different rules of narrative causality.
[ QUOTE ]
), I will admit that they've been pumpin' the pooch for quite some time now. But it's not any different than some past administrations. Worse, perhaps but they've all had low points and moronic moments. Although, I often get a good chuckle out of those people who wanted to impeach Bubba just because he got a hummer in the Oval Office. Doesn't look so bad now, does it? 
In a free society you cannot convict someone on intentions, only on actions.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect. Tell me what an 'accessory' really does? Depending on jurisdiction, that term can have a pretty wide definition. In some, if you know of a crime being committed (or being planned to be committed) and don't report it, you are an accessory. If you are in a group of people just hanging out and one of those people commits a crime, you ALL get rounded up and arrested (the charges probably won't stick but that's of small consolation when you're in jail and supposed to be at work, is it?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check again. Thought-treason is not a US crime. Treasanous ACTS are. And you cannot convict someone just because they associate with someone else who has provably comitted a crime.
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this is an example of idealistic, "on paper" thinking. Anyone who has lived as a minority in a major urban area can relate stories to you about how this happens more than you'd like to admit. Here's a question for you: Let's say you pick up a friend to carpool to work. Now let's also say you're a minority in what might be considered a vehicle that's "too nice" for someone of your race and/or age range to have access to (in this instance, it was a Cadillac Allante) and thus, you get pulled over. What happens if your friend has a dime bag of weed on his person? You BOTH go to jail, don't you? Whether you knew he had it or not. How's the saying go? "Possession is 9/10ths of the law"? Would you get convicted? That would depend on the quality of your legal team (and/or any political influence you might have).
[ QUOTE ]
It is **illegal** for a police officer to beatt someone senseless. Thats called undue force. Furthermore what a police officer may do in cases where they have a suspect withotu evidence is *very* limited. Finally, a polcie officer may NOT arrest anyone for a crime they have not yet comitted.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not touching this one. As a black man born and raised in Brooklyn, NY, I can dispute this one from experience. I've seen more than a few friends beaten to within inches of their lives and not have anything particularly harsh happen to the officers involved (sorry, a week's suspension with pay isn't my idea of a stiff punishment. That's a freakin' VACATION). I'll just say that from my experience and point of view, the above quoted is idealistic at best and doesn't jibe with reality (at least not reality in NYC, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, or 'Frisco/Oakland). I'll ask you to google 'Abner Louima' and 'Amadou Diallo' and lemme know if the punishment fit the crime(s) in those cases (on both sides).
[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that violence outside of the law is sometiems justified? If so, then how do you seperate the violence of your heroes from their opponents by anything other then arbitrary POV?
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll take this and agree wholeheartedly with it. Violence outside the law is often justified, I'd say. Especially when the law plays favorites. Justice can be bought and sold every day. I'm sure everyone can name off an example of justice being foiled due to outside influences (hi O.J.!). Also, punishments are often not nearly as severe as the crimes they're set for. Plea bargains are also commonplace so those penalties get watered down even further. Ask any man what the penalty should be for someone who rapes his wife or his daughter. Ask a mother what the penalty should be for someone who murders their child. I assure you those penalties won't quite jibe with how justice is meted out in reality. Here's something I can guarantee you. The person who can afford a high-end legal team with their hands in the pockets of the folks in power will grant you far more leeway in what you can do and get away with than the dude with the public defender. So yeah, sometimes "frontier justice" is the way justice is served best.
[ QUOTE ]
I DO think however that art emerges from a societal context and that what we see in-game is at least somewhat reflective of the political times we are in.
[/ QUOTE ]
No doubt. Though I suppose there are folks who think the tremendous surge in popularity of shooter type games (many of which are set in the very place where much of the world's oil comes from) over the last 15 years is purely coincidental.
I will say this, while it is all great to talk about things in a "best case scenario" tense, human behavior often doesn't adhere to that line of thought. A person's experiences will determine their views on various subjects like this. I can tell that my experiences differentiate me from many of the "mainstream thinkers" of my generation. I remember when the size of my lips was considered a BAD thing. Now people (okay, women of a particular racial group) are paying thousands of dollars to make their lips the size of mine.
This country has ALWAYS had a double standard applied in every day life. I've benefitted, in some cases, from that double standard (being the godson of an 8-term Congressman has its advantages). Despite the hours and money I spent to seat this administration the first time (come on, I lived in Texas when Jr was governor. WHO KNEW?
The changes that would be necessary to make the current system conform to the idealist perspective would be extremely costly in both money and man hours, though it would offer tremendous benefit. But I think the idealistic views expressed in the original post just don't jibe with the reality I've lived in for 33 years. Just like how I'm treated differently when I walk into a high end store based on how I'm dressed (and I'm sure women can note similar examples elsewhere), the idea that somehow this and similar situations are a recent occurance is just laughable to me. And the provision that "forced" Afghan nationals to register was one of the precursors to the Patriot Act, if I remember correctly.
@Remianen / @Remianen Too
Sig by RPVisions