Praetoria is NOT "goatee" Paragon

The Malta group views rogue metahumans the way you might view a civilian with a rocket launcher. Superpowers are weapons to them. Nothing more.

Remember, the Malta group was born of Cold War paranoia, blown way out of proportion, turned into a manifesto and perpetuated even when the initial cause was gone. The Malta group is a bunch of frightened people trying to maintain what they view as order. Supers are just loose cannons, and that's why they're afraid of them.

Cole's Paragon, from what we've heard of it, looks like it's pretty ordered, and pretty powerful. They don't need Malta to protect themselves from outside threats, so the Malta group would never have started.

Recluse is chaotic evil. Or stupid. Or both.

I'm not sure the Shadows really had civilians.

I'm sad because I want it to be an exploration on how everything is simultaneously Good and Evil, based on how you sell it (see the thread I just set up).

I'm a Christian (and proud of it!). As one, I have heard people sell my culture as altruistic and beautiful, as well as abhorrent and destructive. Depending on what aspects of our history, historical figures, and impact you choose to study, both are arguably true. The concept of that duality (and is a lot more fascinating and fun than "That guy's dressed in black! Punch him, *pow*!"

It's the same reason Joker was given very well thought out and clever speeches to deliver in The Dark Knight that illustrated it was possible to defend the "Joker way of life"... that it wasn't just "murder 4 teh lulz".

That does please me, to be honest, though I'm sorry it makes you sad. I just don't think all that postmodern oh-morality-is-such-a-continuum-of-greys business belongs in a superhero comic universe. In the real world, sure, but I'm here to get away from the real world, not duplicate it with the volume turned up.

But it isn't

It doesn't matter how evil people sell their views - they're still evil - which is why there will be an arc or TF in Praetoria where we punch Tyrant - a lot

So, for discussion sake, if there was a theoretical country that was ruled by a dictator with an iron fist, but the citizens weren't persecuted, no one was hungry and they could engage in art and research and such without retribution. The only catch was they could not seek to govern themselves, that such a system would be inherently evil?

Yes.

I prefer to base the discussion of moral relativism around this argument. For the purposes of the debate, none of the below question is negotiable or changeable, just use your imagination to come up with a scenario if it makes you happier but this question is a doozy for any philosopher.


You learn that millions of people are about to die through an act which you can only prevent by killing hundreds of thousands. What do you do?

You only need to rule with an iron fist if people are unwilling to be ruled

Tyrant was not originally a pejorative term.

Compared to some truly incompetent rulers who inherited their kingdoms, a tyrant who was adept enough to seize power to himself was a welcome change. A tyrant is the poster boy for a meritocracy.

It was the Athenians leaning toward democracy and the Romans with their Republican Senate which demonized the tyrant. And boy did those bookish types trash the idea of a tyrant. And while the Athenians and the Roman Senate are precursors of modern Representative Democracy; they weren't boy scouts. The both wanted rule by 'the people', meaning a few wealthy, male slave owners.

By the Middle Ages, Aquinas was using the term 'tyrant' as a neutral word for any ultimate leader, whether they be king, or chieftain, or war lord, or emperor. And since the overwhelming majority of human existence lived under the rule of a single powerful leader; this was simply considered the norm.

The Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment started to bring in critical thinking about the role of a tyrant and from whence the mandate to rule is based. And in order to make the point that all the people should have a say, they engaged in tyrant-bashing.

But tyrants aren't always that bad. If a populace is in chaos or lacks the resources to be self-governing (ignorance, lack of education, under an epidemic, break down of local government, under gang rule, being attacked by a foreign army), then in those cases, a tyrant is a very good idea.

We've seen in recent history that removing a tyrant doesn't automatically allow democracy to spring up overnight. Both in Hungary and Iraq, the removal of a bad tyrant without replacing him with a benevolent tyrant simply allowed generations-old racial hatreds to become civil wars.

The assumption that a tyrant is always worse then the people governing themselves is naive position born of ideology. Sometime the people are incapable of self governance and instead of letting them kill each other in anarchy, you need a tyrant to govern until you can teach the people to govern themselves. Although, the problem with that is that sometimes tyrants get rather used to their power and are reluctant to give it up even when the people are ready for self-governance.

Marcian, I think you might find my arc #193451 interesting. It deals with the tension between moral absolutes and the notion of "shades of grey." Pay particular attention to the contact's final speech.

***

I like some ambiguity, too, but I can see where Captain_Photon is coming from. One great thing about superhero comics is that they're one of the few remaining media in which melodrama can be, and sometimes is, done well. I like the notion of heroes being good and villains being evil and those terms not being subject to harrowing examination.

That said, the problem with settings about totalitarian governments as villains is that they tend to identify the fictional government with the creator's political bugaboos. Things stay black and white, but they move from a philosophical/moral duality to a political duality. (And, of course, some people would argue that it's impossible to differentiate the two, which makes things even more complicated.) That's a bit different from the good/evil split of your basic melodrama or even from the "honorable villain" so often seen in recent fiction.

I can speak only for myself, but if I were writing the setting, I'd make the Loyalists initially seem evil and the Resistance good, then gradually reveal that the Resistance is pretty contempible, too. This means that the player character who chooses to be heroic is forced to make an even more significant decision, by forging a new morality without outside guidance. However, this doesn't necessarily do much for heroes falling from grace, and I'm not sure an MMO can handle the necessary gradations of complexity in character.

How much time have I got? Because I've only got a Mossberg 500 and a Browning Hi-Power, so that's gonna take me a while.

My friend, it's time to add the Loyalist badge to your signature. You understand sacrifice in the name of the great good.

Ugh, no, see, that just falls into the equally irritating "turns out there are no heroes, Man is an animal, society is a veneer stretched over the law of the jungle" trap. That kind of thing is just as validly explorable, philosophically speaking, but also just as out of place in the simple world of the superhero.

Seriously, I'm just tired of all the postmodern self-examination in today's pop culture. It's why I love Atomic Robo so much. Those guys still get it: Nazis are bad, punch them in their face, the end.

Indeed. A comic book universe should be a world to escape TO, not FROM.

Well, sure. Sitting in the comfort of my own living room, knowing that there's not a chance in hell that it's a decision I will ever actually face, it's easy enough to say "uh, well, g'bye, hundreds of thousands!" In-character, though? Cap would look for Option 3, and if he didn't find it he'd probably end up being one of the millions. He's an idealist. That's why he's a superhero.

But in Praetorian Russia... err... I don't... doesn't compute... #$%@... UNIVERSE UNRAVELLING PARADOX! AHHHH!!!

Just to clarify, I'm with Captain Photon on that one. I just tend to RP horrible, terrible people. Whether there's a "right answer" to this, villainy would tend to side with the "G'bye hundreds of thousands" mentality.

I lol'd! We can see which end of the spectrum your morality lies...at least for mind-games anyways.

If they can't seek to govern themselves, and they can't leave for some place with a system they're able to function in better, then yeah, that's evil as hell. Unfortunately, the kind of extreme actions necessary to shake up a system like that would almost certainly drift so far into the category of "terrorism" that they'd also be evil as hell.

I don't see the Loyalists and Resistance as Villains and Heroes respectively... they both look like groups with some good strong positive points to make, and almost certainly a lot of shady ways that they can go about making them. I'm really hoping that both sides are presented as being as morally ambiguous as I imagine, and that the the decision making process that influences which side your character ends up on won't be a bunch of simple "Do you help the lost little kid find his mom or MURDER HIM AND EAT HIS TENDER FLESH MUAHAHAHAH" kind of crap. I'm hoping for some decision trees where you won't know until after you choose which side you just pushed yourself towards. But with some way to recover standing with the other faction before the final decision has to be made, if you've really got your heart set on one side.

I would think the truely villainous would say "**** it, let the millions die. I don't care"

t3h fr33k5h0w iz n0t j00r p3r50n4l 4rmy.
Seriously, man. It would NOT end well.
I will support any idea that could put all those "He killed all the villains in his home dimension and came to Primal Earth cuz he was bored, but he's a hero, honest" characters in the Rogue Isles where they belong.

Combine that with my theory that the Resistance are the heroic versions of the Freakshow, and things get interesting.

On another note, the Devouring Earth's presence makes me think- co-op Hamidon Raid?

As much as I love Atomic Robo, saying that moral ambiguity has no place in superhero fiction is more a blanket statement on your preference of superhero fiction.

I think there's a lot of room in superhero fiction for all kinds of things, moral ambiguity and philosophical exploration included. Some fictional worlds don't lend themselves to such things due to established styles. That's why many people feel uncomfortable when it happens in the established Marvel or DC Universes–it wasn't there before, so it feels odd to have it now. But that's it. There's no reason why a superhero story has to be simple. You just like it that way. So don't state it like it's fact.

I will say that a lot of the philosophical meandering done at a pop culture level is inane and altogether cheesy (which is sometimes the goal, often times...not), but sometimes the odd gem is actually interesting. This is generally because it's been done before, and better.

I don't expect this game to be the basis of philosophy papers for university students for years to come, so if they don't go philosophical, that's fine by me–I'm here to pound some folks and have a good time (well, not here here as in the forum...)–if they want to get all "deep" on me, I'd rather they do it in unexpected and emotional ways: I always bring this up, but perhaps the most touching moment for me in this entire game was after the Meet with Longbow mission in the Dark Watcher arc. What Captain Dietrich says after the mission really hit me and motivated me to really take it out on the Nemesis in the next mission.

While I won't expect that kind of thing in GR, I certainly do want a moment or two like that.