GR on massively: For the greater good
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-07-01 02:33 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I, personally, would very likely be Resistance.|
Dechs Kaison chooses sides: Damnit. I'm a Loyalist now. |
But, I can't speak for my upcoming "start in Praetoria" character, The Crimson Myst. He'll have to decide that for himself.
Dec out.
Quote:
But the actual basic situation is invalid - it's not that it's implausible - it's simply impossible.
|
Originally Posted by Kheldarn
It's a, "What If?" question. Something that almost can't actually happen. Therefore, none of your evasion garbage matters.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Pretty much all of the Silver Age and most of the Golden Age. Of course, that was as Batman ("special deputy").|
Agonus wonders: When was Bruce ever deputized? |
Then Denny O'Neill made a big mess out of everything with his "Urban Myth" nonsense and things kind of went all to hell.
Dec out.
Quote:
"And now we see the violence inherent in the system..." |
Golden Girl doesn't have **** all over her: I can see a rather large problem with some of this - Tyrant is not repressing Jokers - he's repressing everyone. |
Dec out.
Quote:
Well, one thing to think about is the Freakshow - on Primal Earth, they're the standard mindless anarchists who are violent and aggressive to any authority and see themselve as fighting "the man" - now just imagine how people with that mentality in Praetoira would react to the genuine oppression there? I think the Resistance would be a very attractive option for them - because the Resistance sems to be defined just as much by what it's against as what it's for.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
Reading the description of the Praetorian leadership made me think of fascism straight away. I don't find the Loyalist faction, as described, to be altogether palatable with heroism in its most celebrated form. It may be that the Resistance is equally repugnant.
|
Like you have people like Calvin Scott who's on a personal crusade to get his wife back, or people who have had friends and family killed by Tyrant and are out for revenge, or anarchists who just want to oppose authroity, or ciminals who'd find a less oppressive society easier to operate in, or genuine freedom fighters who oppose the dictatorship on moral grounds - the one thing they're all against is Tyrant - but all for different reasons.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
I wouldn't, but for practical reasons. There was a LOT more going on with WW II and the Holocaust than just Hitler. I'm not convinced killing him would have stopped anything.|
Lady Arete wonders: @GG Going to make an absurd example. Its a for the greater good question and as i'm writing i'm not quite sure if I would. But here is the question. Think of a world without Hitler. Suppose you or your character GG (I do remember that you have stated that your avatar GG is pretty much yourself, but i'll give the possibility of separate)... Suppose you or your character was able to go back in time, maybe even to the first world war when Hitler was just a corporal, you had a chance to take down Hitler... would you have done so. Even if you took the guise of a soldier for the other side, would you have taken a rifle or anything.. aimed it at Hitler for a killing shot and pulled the trigger? In the hope that the Nazi movement would be halted and maybe the second world war and Holocaust might never have happened. Would you have pulled the trigger for this greater good to save 6 million from the death-camps and countless more who died on the battlefield? (Ok, it may not have worked out, due to another major player... Stalin, but lets just think of Hitler? And Europe as we know it today would most likely have been different.) It is a What If scenario, but thought I'd ask. |
You'd probably get more milage out of convincing the Allies to be a bit less harsh on Germany at the Treaty of Versailles, but then that wouldn't stop the world-wide depression that played a heavy heavy hand in the matters.
EDIT: Ah, I see this was touched on already.
Dec out.
Quote:
Ah, good points. One must always remember that The Batman is who "Bruce" really is, and that "Bruce" is just another mask.
|
Starjammer sees him with his martini glass: He may go through the motions. But he does not bring his full mind and will to bear on the problems from that perspective, the way he does as Batman. One reason, as stated above, is because public action would distract from his personal crusade as Batman. Another is that Bruce Wayne is not to be taken too seriously, so people will ignore him. Again in service to Batman's existence. Bruce's rationalization is that Batman is the optimum solution. But in truth it's his chosen solution. And on some level, it's a selfish choice. And Bruce will not kill in pursuit of his own selfish ends. And he knows better than to try justifying it. |
Dec out.
Quote:
Somewhat. Of course, I can never think of it without realizing that the main purpose of Magog was so Alex Ross could say that Cable sucks. |
rian_frostdrake goes there: anyone remember magog in kingdom come? this convo reminds me of that. |
Dec out.
Quote:
Exactly. I don't want to be controversial, but have people really forgotten history? Let me just say one thing, certain iconic dictators of the world did not stand up before their people and say "lets be evil, its fun!", and get a million votes.|
Originally Posted by Oedipus_Tex
Reading the description of the Praetorian leadership made me think of fascism straight away.
|
No, they brainwashed the general public with years and years of media controlled messages and propaganda, until their beliefs became the unquestionable truth. People believed the cause was just and that their leaders were doing the difficult but right thing. They dehumanized certain groups and robbed them of their liberties; liberties which it was viewed they no longer deserved.
My point is, even if it seems logical for Batman to kill Joker in this isolated incidient, what should Batman do with all the other criminals? Does he just start killing people he views as criminals? What happens when his view of what a criminal is and what you think a criminal is start to differ? What happens when Batman becomes the leader of a nation and imposes this belief on the whole of society? Is he still really a hero?
Me? I will be part of the resistance.
Reason I gave the "What if" scenario was that yes, I did remember Red Alert.
I've seen the series Warlords and the analysis of the interaction between Hitler/Stalin, Churchill/Stalin, Churchill/Roosevelt and Roosevelt/Stalin. The world we live in now was a world shaped through the these 4 people, according to that series. 4 different people, 4 different visions/interests etc.
Now GG does evade the What IF scenario, well she does not as much evade as refuse to participate in the yes/no question. I'm not fuzzed about it, I am used to it.
I wanted to give a scenario that had happened. Now since our characters live in a superhero world where access to alternate realities exists and time travel is possible; I'd thought I'd give such a scenario (Like was done in Red Alert).
Myself I do wonder and I guess I'd say that time then is linear. We live x amount of time in the future from Hitler Germany and the event transpired like they did.
Thus with the possibility of a time machine, to save millions of people you can go back in time to the trenches of the first world war. It is war, so sides will shoot on each other. You have come to the other sides aid, disguised as a soldier, you have a rifle and you know that Hitler will soon be in view. You have him in your view of your rifle. He is a german soldier, he is the enemy, yes your not of this time... will you fire.
Its not the Batman has defeated the Joker, odds are Hitler will not even see you (if he did he would have ducked and never showed up)... but it is a thought scenario.
Myself I do not know if I would have pulled the trigger (it is almost sad to say so). Even though I chose Hitler as the opponent due to his infamous personality, beliefs and actions.
The premise is that actions that has taken place are fixed (how else will our reality remain?). Hitler will after 1 world war become the dictator Hitler and make his Nazi Germany... From knowing this road, will you shoot?
Will you sacrifice the world you now know, for a world that you do not know how will end up? The alternate world could be better, more perfect or it could be the Red Alert scenario where Stalin fights the allies.
Myself I have doubts that if Hitler was killed it would have averted a big war. It would hopefully have stopped the slaughter of 6 million jews, but Churchill and Roosevelt might have had to fight the Soviet Union instead. But again, since this did not happen, but Nazi Germany happened, it will only be speculation.
GG did not want to play this scenario. Instead I get the idea that GG would rather have had tried to go earlier in his life and hopefully tried making Hitler into a painter and someone who did not write Main Kampf.
(Which is a good thought by the way a pity it it did not happen.)
Lady Arete on Unionhandbook
My Excel Badge tool
Quote:
Yup. Thought police and the idea of being sent to jail for a crime you have not commited (Yet). You are right though, I believe many would clamour for such a system if it would be possible. |
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Things get more complex when we consider the idea of a system that always makes correct decisions. If the Seers, through experimentation, have been shown to be completely accurate in predicting which citizens will and will not go on to commit crimes, are arrests based on that information justified?
Such experimentation would require the authorities to stand back and wait for someone already determined as likely to commit violent crime to actually commit a crime. The more evidence these experiments generate for the Seers' accuracy, the more the public - particularly victims of violent crime and their loved ones - would demand that the police stop sitting on their hands and start making arrests based on Seer evidence. Imagine the news reports: grieving family members shaking with outrage that the police knew that horrible person was going to kill their parent/child/spouse, the Seers told them so, and they did nothing... It doesn't require a super-dictator to make people accept thought police. PS: In this thread, many will be compelled to respond to a person acting as if they are incapable of nuanced moral reasoning. |
Such a system gives me the shivers though. To quote from Babylon 5.
"A psi-cop is 12. The highest psi rating. Someone must watch over the rest"
"But who watches the watcher?"
Mental institutes and tests that can filter out persons with aggressive or criminal possibilities at an early age... (Thinking of me in Mother Mayhem's care... and shudders).
Myself I look forward to make at least two characters, one for loyalist and one for resistance to explore it more thoroughly.
Lady Arete on Unionhandbook
My Excel Badge tool
Quote:
I hope you don't actually believe that, though. None of them were working alone or in a vacuum nor were using totally original ideas.|
Lady Arete read something narrow: Reason I gave the "What if" scenario was that yes, I did remember Red Alert. I've seen the series Warlords and the analysis of the interaction between Hitler/Stalin, Churchill/Stalin, Churchill/Roosevelt and Roosevelt/Stalin. The world we live in now was a world shaped through the these 4 people, according to that series. 4 different people, 4 different visions/interests etc. |
Quote:
| Myself I have doubts that if Hitler was killed it would have averted a big war. It would hopefully have stopped the slaughter of 6 million jews, but Churchill and Roosevelt might have had to fight the Soviet Union instead. But again, since this did not happen, but Nazi Germany happened, it will only be speculation. |
Dec out.
Quote:
It's probably even closer to Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme limited series. Building off of the history of an alternate Earth that had been visited by heroes from the main Marvel Earth, which had no less than three incidents where the planet was taken over (at least one of which involved a limited nuclear exchange, if memory serves) in the very recent past. The titular Justice League analogues decide to take charge and create a Utopia, using whatever means are at their disposal. It's a great read, if you haven't already been exposed to it.|
Originally Posted by rian_frostdrake
anyone remember magog in kingdom come? this convo reminds me of that.
|
Strangely enough, given the article that inspired this thread, the Batman analogue resigns from the group in protest over the lengths that they are willing to go to in the construction of their Utopia.
"I wish my life was a non-stop Hollywood movie show,
A fantasy world of celluloid villains and heroes."
Quote:
Someone should, always. Checks and balances. They're what makes for open, free and fair government.|
Lady Arete sees the flaw: Yup. Thought police and the idea of being sent to jail for a crime you have not commited (Yet). You are right though, I believe many would clamour for such a system if it would be possible. Such a system gives me the shivers though. To quote from Babylon 5. "A psi-cop is 12. The highest psi rating. Someone must watch over the rest" "But who watches the watcher?" |
Not to say they haven't failed from time to time, but without them, you can almost guarantee oppression.
Dec out.
Quote:
If you reduce them to their bare plot points, Squadron Supreme and Kingdom Come are damned near the same story. |
Ms. Mesmer goes to the source: It's probably even closer to Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme limited series. |
Not that KC was a copy. It's just what you get when you do "What would happen if the JLA took over the world?"
Dec out.
Quote:
Decorum seems to have it right.|
Originally Posted by Decorum
I hope you don't actually believe that, though. None of them were working alone or in a vacuum nor were using totally original ideas.
Sure. But, I doubt it would have saved the Jews either. Anti-Semitism is as old as Semites and there were a whole lot of people working on The Final Solution. Hitler wasn't any more rabidly Anti-Semite than the people around him and likely the spot he held would have been held by someone similar. Eliminating Hitler doesn't stop the Nazis from forming and doing exactly as they did. You'd have better luck killing Goebbels, but even that...someone would have stepped in. The Jews have been scape-goated for everything under the sun for almost as long as they have existed. It was an easy and obvious propaganda move. |
Worse, Hitler was pretty incompetent overall as a leader in the end, and the Allies actually STOPPED TRYING TO ASSASSINATE HIM DIRECTLY when they realized Hitler was the greatest detriment to preserving his own empire.
So, unless I could make the Treaty of Versailles go differently and manage to stop the Great Depression... I would leave Hitler alone on that battlefield.
Actually, in the other scenario I would still leave him alone since it would theoretically mean he would end up rather voiceless and powerless.
Click here to find all the All Things Art Threads!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
City of Heroes is a game about freedom of expression and variety of experiences far more so than it is about representing any one theme, topic or genre.
|
Quote:
Seriously, if you want to put the biggest crimp in the rise of Nazism, short of rewriting the Treaty of Versaille as suggested, the assassination most likely to do any real good would be Neville Chamberlain.|
Originally Posted by AzureSkyCiel
Decorum seems to have it right.
Worse, Hitler was pretty incompetent overall as a leader in the end, and the Allies actually STOPPED TRYING TO ASSASSINATE HIM DIRECTLY when they realized Hitler was the greatest detriment to preserving his own empire. So, unless I could make the Treaty of Versailles go differently and manage to stop the Great Depression... I would leave Hitler alone on that battlefield. Actually, in the other scenario I would still leave him alone since it would theoretically mean he would end up rather voiceless and powerless. |
Not that it would have immediately catapulted Churchill into power or given his views respect. But at the very least you wouldn't have Chamberlain trying to buy off Hitler by giving him approval to annex other countries' lands. That was a major signal of weakness to the Nazis.
Quote:
Intent. Killing for fun = evil. Killing to save hundreds or thousands from those that do kill for fun = good.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
And at what point does the greater good become the greater evil?
|
Quote:
Glad I am not the only one that has seen Hot Fuzz
|
Originally Posted by Reiraku
You have to say it in a deadpan, droning voice.
|
Quote:
Actually he is.|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
That assumes that Batman is morally responsible for the Joker's actions. He's not, no matter how many times they do their dance. If you're going to go that route, Batman could equally well kill the staff at Arkham for not tranking the Joker into a coma when he is put away. They bear equal responsibility, no?
Personal morality aside, the real reason that Batman doesn't start by killing the Joker is because it would not stop there. That's a road that Bats knows that he can't ever take even one step down. And the Joker knows it too, which is why he keeps trying to get Bats to take that step. |
The Joker is only the Joker because Batman is Batman, he's told him this several times, and it's been shown several other times that when Bruce Wayne stops being Batman, the Joker stops.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Quote:
Lots of criminals blame their actions on others. Momma hit me. Daddy abused me. I was bullied in school. My boss is mean to me. Society is cruel. Life is unfair. The world is hard.|
Originally Posted by CactusBrawler
Actually he is.
The Joker is only the Joker because Batman is Batman, he's told him this several times, and it's been shown several other times that when Bruce Wayne stops being Batman, the Joker stops. |
All these things may contribute to an individual's problems. But none of them excuse or override the individual's responsibility. Everybody has their own stuff to deal with and most people do so without becoming criminals.
Now, the Joker is insane, which is somewhat different. But it still doesn't make him Batman's responsibility. It's like telling the target of a stalker that they shouldn't be so damned interesting.
Quote:
Batman stopped during the Dark Knigt Returns comic, Joker spent several decades in a more or less catatonic state. Batman returns? Joker kills an entire audience of people during a televised appearance.|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
Lots of criminals blame their actions on others. Momma hit me. Daddy abused me. I was bullied in school. My boss is mean to me. Society is cruel. Life is unfair. The world is hard.
All these things may contribute to an individual's problems. But none of them excuse or override the individual's responsibility. Everybody has their own stuff to deal with and most people do so without becoming criminals. Now, the Joker is insane, which is somewhat different. But it still doesn't make him Batman's responsibility. It's like telling the target of a stalker that they shouldn't be so damned interesting. |
Batman 'dies' during the current DC run, Joker becomes Saxon Hale, a fairly nice gravedigger and possibly a crime fighter.
Brawling Cactus from a distant planet.
Quote:
Those are all symptoms of the Joker's obsession with Batman. Absolutely none of it invests Batman with moral culpability for the Joker's actions.
|
Originally Posted by CactusBrawler
Batman stopped during the Dark Knigt Returns comic, Joker spent several decades in a more or less catatonic state. Batman returns? Joker kills an entire audience of people during a televised appearance.
Batman 'dies' during the current DC run, Joker becomes Saxon Hale, a fairly nice gravedigger and possibly a crime fighter. |
Quote:
So, in other words, he's putting his needs way, way ahead of the needs of the many?|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Like you have people like Calvin Scott who's on a personal crusade to get his wife back
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
or people who have had friends and family killed by Tyrant and are out for revenge
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Or anarchists who just want to oppose authroity, or ciminals who'd find a less oppressive society easier to operate in,
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
or genuine freedom fighters who oppose the dictatorship on moral grounds
|
What shall claim a Sky Kings' Ransom?
PPD & Resistance Epic Archetypes
Reading the description of the Praetorian leadership made me think of fascism straight away. I don't find the Loyalist faction, as described, to be altogether palatable with heroism in its most celebrated form. It may be that the Resistance is equally repugnant. However, knowing that other side is as bad or worse doesn't redeem Tyrant's faction in my eyes. This may lead to a situation where an individual simply sees them both like petty, squabbling warlords and wishes to side with neither of them.
I will say that I find the concept of hero and villain sort of ridiculous when applied to real life, although I'm ok with them in this game because they are appropriate to the genre. With this in mind, though, I create my characters less as "real people" and more as "comic book personalities," often thinking of them less as title characters than as minor heroes or villains encountered in the background, often with ambiguous motives like fame, solving a personal mystery, obeying an outside force, making a living, rekindling a television career, and so on. The kinds of "good" and "evil" actions described in this thread are difficult to apply to them.
As to the Batman / Joker train of thought, how much of that is really a commentary on morality versus a marketing decision I have trouble distinguishing. But to look at it as a moral dilemma for a moment, generally speaking I can't say I support my police force killing criminals because "the system doesn't work." I actually think the graphic novel Watchmen covered the subject well (completely lost in the film version) when it explicitly compared costumed heroes to violent and intolerant vigilantes. I don't want to give spoilers, but Praetoria is a world governed by the, uh, "end boss" in Watchmen. I don't think the ends justified the means there nor do I think they will in Praetoria.