The simple definition of a vigilante is "one who takes the law into his own hands".
I would, personally, expand on that a bit, though. It is someone who recognises (correctly or not) that the law is unable to provide justice for crimes (whether real or perceived), and chooses to step outside the boundaries of a society's legalities and act.
Not only is the belief that the law will not do the job required, but the will to take the step beyond and take the actions that are necessary to achieve the vigilante's notion of "justice" is also essential.
I am certain that, in-game, the mechanics of vigilantism will be cut and dried, since a computer game can only simulate so much. It will follow a "this action is clearly heroic, while this action is, while still achieving the correct end, unlawful" path. The truth of the matter is that this approach is rather simplistic, and the legal systems of the real world allow for flexibility in the form of precedents in sentencing allow for a much greater "shades-of-grey" view.
It is a rare person who will say that what a vigilante chooses to do is necessarily wrong. It may be illegal, but we all understand that the human animal is not one of black and white perceptions. Almost any discussion involving vigilantism will have the sentence "I understand why he does it, but..." in it somewhere. The only difference between different people is what comes after that.
"But it's against the law, and he must be punished." is a common one. I tend to agree with it, but would like to believe that the judge passing down sentence on the vigilante will show leniency due to mitigating circumstances.
"But he takes it too far." is another one, and also one that I can see the reasoning behind. Anyone saying this is saying "I, too, would feel wronged, but I would not go to that level of extremes".
There are many other "but's" that can be offered, but it is almost unheard of for anyone to say, simply and without qualification "he shouldn't do that".
As such, vigilantism is a perception of society - the limits that a society will allow one of its own to stretch to within the boundaries of the law. The vigilante crosses the boundary between "law abiding citizens" and "criminals". The vigilante is, at least to most people, in neither group, yet has links to both. He breaks the law, so is clearly not in the first group, yet he acts directly against the interests of the second group.
Ultimately, though, a vigilante is someone, in my opinion, who has the courage to stand up for his convictions, to say "the line has been crossed, and I will cross right back". They seek to repair damage done by those breaking the law, and choose to do so by breaking the law themselves. It is often said that two wrongs don't make a right, and while that is true, I also feel that "I understand why he did it, but..."
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise 
; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
And that's pretty much the nail on the head:
Vigilanties do wha they think they must, regardless of the laws or opinions of others, because they feel that's what -must- be done.
If they're right or wrong is open to large debate though.
Quote:
That's... actually, that's a surprisingly aware answer. I think I'm going to be keeping that in mind, in the future.|
Originally Posted by BeyondReach
My reasoning is this: I am a Christian Socialist. There isn't anything you can do to change that.
Unless someone doesn't know what their political of philosophical standpoint is - as in doesn't have particular moral values or an economic viewpoint (but doesn't have to have a label, merely thinking that they are sure of these things is enough) - they will be what they are. A discussion about such a thing will be futile, the two people will just present an argument from two different perspectives, with no resolution as both individuals believe they are right. That is why they are confident enough to argue. P.S. When I said I was a Christian I wasn't stating any theistic beliefs, merely a moral standpoint. |
Quote:
| It is often said that two wrongs don't make a right... |
Quote:
Thank you.|
Originally Posted by FunstuffofDoom
I've never liked that saying. It's always struck me as needlessly childish. That aside, your post was quite eloquent.
|
On the singular point of disagreement, though, I'm inclined to agree with you that "two wrongs" is childish. I wouldn't say needlessly, though, since it is most commonly used in educating children on the stance that their society has on certain behaviours.
And, broadly speaking, in the societies of the world today, the consensus is that "revenge" is wrong, so "he did it to me" isn't an acceptable justification for performing the same or similar acts.
Of course, now we're stepping into the realms where vigilantism comes into play, because it really is about revenge, on some level. That is a primal need in most people, and civilised societies like to believe that we are beyond revenge as a solution to wrongs done, yet we all like to see the good guy get his own back. It speaks to us on a level that we're both ashamed to admit to, yet secretly thrilled by.
The vigilante, though, isn't about mindless revenge - part of the will I spoke of earlier essentially allows the vigilante to carefully restrict the level of their vengeance. In fact it practically demands it, because mindless revenge isn't punishment, which is ultimately what the vigilante wants; it's allowing anger to control your actions. Most vigilantes, as described in comic books, are pretty cool customers. They know exactly what they're doing, and they don't let their desire to punish own them - they are ruled by their desire for justice.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
Quote:
I actually think that's slightly off. Society has decided that personal revenge is wrong, but group revenge isn't. If I go too far with that, I'll derail the thread so I'll narrow it down to Vigilantism here.|
Originally Posted by Shadowe
And, broadly speaking, in the societies of the world today, the consensus is that "revenge" is wrong, so "he did it to me" isn't an acceptable justification for performing the same or similar acts.
|
Society has the view that personal revenge, or personal exactment of punishment (because there's a fine line between revenge and punishment when dealing with the treatment of convicted criminals) is wrong. Vigilantes believe that this is wrong, probably because they think society is unable, or unwilling, to handle it.
Going back to specifics, in Decisions of Import, Annette has concluded that society will not punish the man responsible for Claire's death, because he's too good at hiding his trail, and anyway the punishment would never fit the crimes.
I also think this is where CoH Vigilantes will diverge from typical real-world vigilantes. The vigilantes we commonly come across in the real world tend to operate on immediate crimes. It seems likely that CoH Vigilantes will be more investigative. Specifics:
The Death Wish movies were based on a real vigilante who was tried and aquitted in New York. There's an interesting video about him on the Watchmen Director's Cut DVD if people are interested, I'm sure it could be found elsewhere too. This guy shot some muggers who, he says, tried to kill him. It became a bit dubious when it transpired that he had gone out looking for muggers, used himself as bait, and then acted when he was attacked. Really, this is very much what (legal) street sweeping is like in CoH.
I suspect that CoH Vigilantes will operate more like Annette does. She found a crime, investigated it, located the person ultimately responsible, and then exacted punishment. This is far more dangerous because she might be wrong. If you wait to be attacked, you're pretty sure your 'victim' is a criminal; if you proactively locate them, without seeing an actual crime, you could get the wrong person.
I don't actually see this as so much of an issue because society hasn't got a great track record at getting it right either. Society does have a problem with that, however. I think it's a collective responsibility thing. (We have this weird issue with taking collective responsibility, we always look for individuals to blame, but we rely on it so we can say it wasn't our fault. Yes, I'm horribly cynical.)
I'm rambling again. Shut up, Birdy.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
do we know , yet, if in game Vigilantes will be classed as criminals by the PPD and Paragon agencies ?..thus meaning for RP secret ID's will be more important ..?
I don't believe we do. If you want my educated guess:
We will probably not be attacked on sight by 'police' characters if we turn Vigilante. I doubt we will be able to attack them, however, it's not impossible.
We do know that the Clockwork in Praetoria will act in a neutral manner unless attacked and it's possible that the Longbow and PPD characters around Paragon could be re-engineered to act similarly.
Another thing we don't entirely know is what would be the result of such entities taking you out. We haven't heard anything about a new Zig Zone, and that above anything makes me think that Vigilantes will be Heroes as far as the cops go, aside possibly for specific missions related to the moral swing process.
That's kind of off-topic, but important to the RP of vigilantism.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
I will point out, Birdy, that we don't know that. We only know that the Praetorian Clockwork from a specific tech demo behaved in that way. Now, I seriously hope that the aggro code has been upgraded to include "do not check aggro unless attacked first", or better yet, "do not check aggro unless attacked first, unless perceived target's reputation with faction is below threshold X", and I'm being cautiously optimistic about it, but I will not be surprised one way or the other.|
Originally Posted by Ravenswing
We do know that the Clockwork in Praetoria will act in a neutral manner unless attacked and it's possible that the Longbow and PPD characters around Paragon could be re-engineered to act similarly.
|
Quote:
|
Another thing we don't entirely know is what would be the result of such entities taking you out. We haven't heard anything about a new Zig Zone, and that above anything makes me think that Vigilantes will be Heroes as far as the cops go, aside possibly for specific missions related to the moral swing process. That's kind of off-topic, but important to the RP of vigilantism. |
As I mention above, changes to the aggro code to include a flag to check the response against the "Hero/Vigilante/Rogue/Villain" allegiances, which could theoretically allow different responses to different members of the same team (and I squeal with glee at the thought of an additional factor in the Threat code that could complicate targeting in combat), would cover the various responses from different groups - and we know that the tech exists to change mission dialogue text dependent on character-stored flags, so some sort of (preferably invisible) reputation mechanic could have all sorts of implications to your interactions with different groups in Praetoria.
Heading back into Paragon, though, and based on the assumption that the devs won't have made wholesale changes to the entire "original" CoH universe's code, it is likely that your current "allegiance" will simply affect where you can go and what retail you can do - though I would very much enjoy something that works a bit like the following:
On Defeat by Law Enforcement Group, check team's overall reputation. Team leader grants a modifier (he is the leader, after all). If reputation equals "Hero", medical transport to Hospital/Base. If reputation equals "Vigilante/Rogue" medical transport to nearest PPD Station/Base.
That doesn't need a new Zig zone, and thanks to SSK means that it is unlikely anyone will end up in a zone too high for them.
Okay, not going to go off track any more.
Oh, and yes, Birdy, you're correct about "single revenge" versus "group revenge". Thank you.
The wisdom of Shadowe: Ghostraptor: The Shadowe is wise ...; FFM: Shadowe is no longer wise.
; Techbot_Alpha: Also, what Shadowe said. It seems he is still somewhat wise ; Bull Throttle: Shadowe was unwise in this instance...; Rock_Powerfist: in this instance Shadowe is wise.; Techbot_Alpha: Shadowe is very wise *nods*; Zortel: *Quotable line about Shadowe being wise goes here.*
Quote:
It was part of the DP demo, I agree, but the guy doing the demo stated that that was how they operated. It could have been engineered that way specifically for the demo, but I very much got the impression that that was not the case and that they were behaving normally. It would have been very easy to do that demo against other targets, seeing as DP isn't limited to Praeotoria. Engineering specific AI behaviour just for the demo seems kind of pointless. They did show off the new Clockwork models independently in the seminar on costume/creature design (they were terribly fond of the chest-opening-megablast animation) so they didn't need to show them off in that demo. We were all gushing about the DP animations, tbh. |
Originally Posted by Shadowe
I will point out, Birdy, that we don't know that.
|
Quote:
| Much as I hate the delay, this is going to be something that will have to wait until Going Rogue details become publicly available. |
Being the person who likes to operate as much as possible within the game mechanics, even for RP, I'm kind of preparing to have some of my assumptions of how I'll actually let my characters behave trashed once the game comes out. I've been working on Praetorian Annette and Vigilante Annette since October, based on the impressions I got at HeroCon. However, that's like 9 months before release and the details are vague and could change anyway.
Quote:
| Oh, and yes, Birdy, you're correct about "single revenge" versus "group revenge". Thank you. |
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
You're not alone in that; most of my heroes would also refuse to kill Rikti, for various reasons.|
Originally Posted by Omega_Chief
But that's just my thoughts on the idea, but you know me, I'm the crazy guy with some characters who won't even kill Rikti >.>
|
To me, a vigilante is anyone who exceeds their legal authority to fight crime and bring criminals to justice. In Paragon City, that presumably means either fighting crime without a hero license, or exceeding the rights granted by that license. To my knowledge we've never been told exactly what those rights are, but they're almost certainly no greater than those afforded to a police officer, probably somewhat less. To me, a hero can use lethal force as a last resort in defense of their own life or that of another citizen, but the requirements to justify it would be very stringent - heroes are expected to have the powers and/or skills to do things, and survive things, that other people can't.
I only have one character (so far) who I think would be called a vigilante, namely the Portent. He doesn't recognise the authority of the law and follows it only as far as he needs to to avoid bringing suspicion or disrepute on his allies in the Militia. He would also lay down his life rather than kill someone or allow them to die if he could prevent it, regardless of circumstances. If this gets him killed one day, then he'll die with his principles intact, and be content with that. I'd consider him to be at the far end of the spectrum from the Punisher-style vigilante in moral terms, but no less a vigilante.
Knights Exemplar: Wolfram, Autumnfox, Starlit Spirit.
Militia: The Portent, Wavekite, Mr. Sandman.
The Cadre: WarpLocke, Zajin.
Numerous others.
Quote:
I'm a little undecided with this. If you talk about the comic batman (IMHO the real batman) he does bring in the villains to the law enforcement or to Arkham if they are too dangerous to keep in jail. Though he is not an actual policeman and wears a badge he works with the police, Chief Jim Gordon is his informer and they constantly keep communication with each other. The villains of Gothamn know that Batman will put them in jail. So in a way Batman is a part of the law enforcement. He is also Gotham's hero alongside Robin which Gotham can call on when they are in need of help, using the bat signal. Just like calling 911.|
Originally Posted by DeviousMe
Batman, for instance, is a defined vigilante even though he does not kill (not accounting for the accidental or self-inflicted deaths of) his criminal adversaries. He is not a police officer, not part of the justice system, not part of legal law enforcement, and he operates by means and methods not sanctioned by the laws of the society of which he is a part.
|
If you talk about the Bale movies however.. (I won't state my opinion of them here) it's portrayed slight different. Bale is more of a person taking law in his own hand. As wayne he's totally different from the charasmatic and intelligent Wayne in the comics who put everyone else well being before himself. As batman Bale is a depressed and a mental instable maniac who is constantly fighting against his memories of the criminal who shot down his father and mother. Yes, Batman does have this inner conflict in the comics 2 but its extremely much better pulled of, well written and it builds up to something important.
Quote:
I wouldn't say Batman is well written in the comics at all. The editorial mandate that he should never kill off any of his villains, else they can't bring them back in the future, and would shock, horror! have to be some what creative in their future story telling. Kills any idea that Batman is a vigilante, or even a hero at all.|
Originally Posted by Spazztastics
I'm a little undecided with this. If you talk about the comic batman (IMHO the real batman) he does bring in the villains to the law enforcement or to Arkham if they are too dangerous to keep in jail. Though he is not an actual policeman and wears a badge he works with the police, Chief Jim Gordon is his informer and they constantly keep communication with each other. The villains of Gothamn know that Batman will put them in jail. So in a way Batman is a part of the law enforcement. He is also Gotham's hero alongside Robin which Gotham can call on when they are in need of help, using the bat signal. Just like calling 911.
If you talk about the Bale movies however.. (I won't state my opinion of them here) it's portrayed slight different. Bale is more of a person taking law in his own hand. As wayne he's totally different from the charasmatic and intelligent Wayne in the comics who put everyone else well being before himself. As batman Bale is a depressed and a mental instable maniac who is constantly fighting against his memories of the criminal who shot down his father and mother. Yes, Batman does have this inner conflict in the comics 2 but its extremely much better pulled of, well written and it builds up to something important. |
No what Batman does is purely for his own sick enjoyment.
Take the Joker, Batman will never kill the Joker, instead putting him back into Arkham, which has proven to be less effective than the Zig on CoV launch day. Joker will escape, maybe beat to death a bus full of nuns ("What's black and white, and red all over Bats?"), innocents will die while Joker continues his flirting with Batman, and Batman will just get him sent to worlds least secure location again.
If it wasn't for the whole his villains must return, 'cus no one wants to think up new ones, then he wouldn't need to kill and he'd still be able to be the Dark Knight, simply put, he could build a new Arkham Asylum, on the moon, or at the bottom of the ocean, or even pull a Tony Stark and put it in another dimension.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Batman not killing is a fairly integral thing of him being Batman. Hell despite what everyone usually assumes, he's the most steadfastly moral of all the DC heroes. Usually. Of course some Writers miss this by a mile and make him a psychopath, but that's not really compelling.
Of course that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people in the DC who really should have killed the Joker by now that aren't Batman, or at least he'd have been heavily medicated, but that's not how the main DC continuity goes.
Which isn't to say it's never happened in alternate continuity comics. Kingdom Come pretty much starts off when a new hero kills the Joker and it goes rapidly downhill from there.
Vigilantism was biggest in the Iron Age comics and really the key theme of it all was that the Heroes ended up pretty much no better than the Villains. Killing people changes you, doesn't really matter how you justify it and its a rapid decent from being judge, jury and executioner to the whole system breaking to bits as the Law gets ignored and everyone starts to take justice into their own hands.
Part of the problem I see with it, is we have the Justice system because it tries to give a fair punishment. Its not always right and far from perfect, but there's a rare criminal who everyone can agree on the punishment for and death isn't something you can undo easily in CoH. Its happened, but its rare. If everyone's given a licence to kill then there ends up being a whole lot of bodies.
Or in short. Vigilantes are rarely the level headed and thorough investigators needed to be sure that their brand of justice is fair and tend to be so sure of thier own opinions that they rarely consider anyone else's.
Amusingly, I have a character that might well be the same in mind but as far from a Vigilante as you can get. But at least they're not killing anyone.
The problem is a Vigilante 'helps' people even if they don't do so legally.
Batman on the other hand attracts crazies, crazies who will maim and murder just to attract his attention. In turn despite being the cause of this problem, Batman won't do anything about it. Even if we ignore the lethal ways, he has a whole host of none lethal ways that would get his rogue gallery out of everyone's hair.
Sort of the same with Spiderman, sometimes the Bugle is right, and Spidey is a menace, at least he is when his rogues are out just to get him, and messing everyone else's day up in the process. But at least they have better prisons in Marvel NYC.
Edit to clarify:
Batman isn't a vigilante in my opinion, because his existence does more harm than good.
"Gotham" comics Batman that is, the more fantastical Justice League and team comic Batman, is a great boon to mankind.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
All of Batman's villains were there before him, or started without the intention of getting his eye. None existed entirely because of Batman, except the Joker (But he can't ever get his origin story straight, so maybe not)
Just one or two got obsessed. The Joker and the Riddler respectively and the Riddler's pretty harmless because you can't prove you're smarter to a corpse. He leaves the justice system to deal with them and really its their failing that's the problem, not Batman's. But hey, Batman has recurring Villains in the Main Continuity and its part of the draw. Don't like it, read one of the innumerable spin offs where he doesn't.
Same for Spiderman. Venom would have found someone to posess if it didn't find Spidey. Van Kraven is the one exception, but he's really a gag Villain if anything.
Also Gotham, if not the world, would have been destroyed a few times if not for Batman so that does get him some big bonus points in the Hero category!
Quote:
That's not a terribly fair accusation. You're ragging on a problem comics as a medium have, not Batman in particular. Yes, in his instance, it is pronounced, but it's like ragging on Superman for wearing spandex: there's nothing the character can actually do about it. The problem's metafictional. I hate linking to TvTropes, because I'm capable of forming my own opinions, thank you, but they do have a very good writeup of the entire thing.|
Originally Posted by CactusBrawler
The problem is a Vigilante 'helps' people even if they don't do so legally.
Batman on the other hand attracts crazies, crazies who will maim and murder just to attract his attention. In turn despite being the cause of this problem, Batman won't do anything about it. Even if we ignore the lethal ways, he has a whole host of none lethal ways that would get his rogue gallery out of everyone's hair. Sort of the same with Spiderman, sometimes the Bugle is right, and Spidey is a menace, at least he is when his rogues are out just to get him, and messing everyone else's day up in the process. But at least they have better prisons in Marvel NYC. Edit to clarify: Batman isn't a vigilante in my opinion, because his existence does more harm than good. "Gotham" comics Batman that is, the more fantastical Justice League and team comic Batman, is a great boon to mankind. |
Edit:Link.
Quote:
Yep, because killing a comic book character is a sure-fire way to ensure they won't be back. |
Originally Posted by CactusBrawler
No what Batman does is purely for his own sick enjoyment.
Take the Joker, Batman will never kill the Joker, instead putting him back into Arkham, which has proven to be less effective than the Zig on CoV launch day. |
Batman doesn't decide what to do with the various villains once they're arrested. He turns them over to the authorities and the authorities send them to Arkham/Blackgate/wherever, according to due process. This is part of a point that was made earlier - there's a major difference between just arresting a criminal and taking upon yourself to punish them. Heroes in CoH seem to be similarly limited to the investigation and arrest side of things. Declaring yourself judge and jury (and possibly executioner) is a big step over the line.
Knights Exemplar: Wolfram, Autumnfox, Starlit Spirit.
Militia: The Portent, Wavekite, Mr. Sandman.
The Cadre: WarpLocke, Zajin.
Numerous others.
Quote:
As Bruce Wayne however he could donate to Gotham city, a much more secure Arkham Asylum, say on the moon or deep in space. That said he doesn't seem much concerned with legal niceties, breaking and entering, assault and battery, and he's just going off hunches, unlike in CoH.
|
Originally Posted by Wolfram
Yep, because killing a comic book character is a sure-fire way to ensure they won't be back.
Batman doesn't decide what to do with the various villains once they're arrested. He turns them over to the authorities and the authorities send them to Arkham/Blackgate/wherever, according to due process. This is part of a point that was made earlier - there's a major difference between just arresting a criminal and taking upon yourself to punish them. Heroes in CoH seem to be similarly limited to the investigation and arrest side of things. Declaring yourself judge and jury (and possibly executioner) is a big step over the line. |
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Quote:
Just because the villains find it easy to escape from a regular asylum, it doesn't mean they are incapable of escaping from more secure locations. Also, there is no way that anyone would think about creating a prison deep in space. I don't think Bruce Wayne is that rich, even if it was possible with modern technology.
|
Originally Posted by CactusBrawler
As Bruce Wayne however he could donate to Gotham city, a much more secure Arkham Asylum, say on the moon or deep in space. That said he doesn't seem much concerned with legal niceties, breaking and entering, assault and battery, and he's just going off hunches, unlike in CoH.
|
Bad Voodoo by @Beyond Reach. Arc ID #373659. Level 20-24. Mr. Bocor has fallen victim to a group of hooded vigilantes who have been plaguing Port Oakes, interfering with illegal operations and pacifying villain's powers. He demands that revenge is taken on these miscreants and his powers are returned! You look like just the villain for the job. Challenging.
Blackgate is built (Or at least funded and helped with design) by Bruce Wayne and he's tried to improve it as a place to keep villains incarcerated a few times.
Also they can't imprison people on the moon or in deep space. They don't OWN those places nor have the right to extradite people there. Batman doesn't mind breaking and entering, but he draws the line at outright abuse of human rights.
It's just the way his world works. There's nothing he can do to keep them permanently out of the way. Not kill them, retire, blow up the world or lock them in a super special prison. Arguing that one way is 'best' because his current one doesn't work is a bit silly.
Quote:
Indeed. I'm given to believe that this is the deciding aspect with regard to the in-game definition of a Vigilante. That's my perception of the concept from the seminar's and presentations at HeroCon. We'll have to wait and see what we actually get.
|
Originally Posted by Wolfram
This is part of a point that was made earlier - there's a major difference between just arresting a criminal and taking upon yourself to punish them. Heroes in CoH seem to be similarly limited to the investigation and arrest side of things. Declaring yourself judge and jury (and possibly executioner) is a big step over the line.
|
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Quote:
He paid for the satellite that the justice league call home, and their moon base too.|
Originally Posted by BeyondReach
Just because the villains find it easy to escape from a regular asylum, it doesn't mean they are incapable of escaping from more secure locations. Also, there is no way that anyone would think about creating a prison deep in space. I don't think Bruce Wayne is that rich, even if it was possible with modern technology.
|
Of course the writers and editors are to blame, rather than the character. But it just makes him seem so false.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
If you're worried about a flame war, my experience dictates that the Roleplaying section might as well have been built with asbestos.
Unless someone doesn't know what their political of philosophical standpoint is - as in doesn't have particular moral values or an economic viewpoint (but doesn't have to have a label, merely thinking that they are sure of these things is enough) - they will be what they are. A discussion about such a thing will be futile, the two people will just present an argument from two different perspectives, with no resolution as both individuals believe they are right. That is why they are confident enough to argue.
P.S. When I said I was a Christian I wasn't stating any theistic beliefs, merely a moral standpoint.
Bad Voodoo by @Beyond Reach. Arc ID #373659. Level 20-24. Mr. Bocor has fallen victim to a group of hooded vigilantes who have been plaguing Port Oakes, interfering with illegal operations and pacifying villain's powers. He demands that revenge is taken on these miscreants and his powers are returned! You look like just the villain for the job. Challenging.