All right, YOU have Super Powers. Are you a Hero or a Vigilante?
By
Arcanaville,
Posted on: 2010-08-24 13:23 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
Already did so Marcian.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
And now you both know how the other one feels. Unless either of you are entering this conversation willing to be corrected and convinced, let's move on, shall we?
 |
THe definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Apply that as you will.
Quote:
without reading the thread and first blush at the topic:|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
Let's say that you, yes you, at the computer reading forums, wind up with the super power and super smarts to be a "Cape". Like DareDevil, Spiderman, or Batman, your identity is constantly sought, but you're so cool that no one can figure you out. Yes, this puts you above the law.
My question: Do you, like Superman, bind yourself by the moral code and legal system of your city like a Hero? You set an example and are the ideal citizen, but your unwillingness to cross the line restricts you from many many methods of information gathering and arrest. As a result, you remain a virtuous ambition of many, but less criminals are caught. (Edit: An explanation of your power level.) Or do you, like the Punisher or Rorschach, put vengeance and justice above needless laws and don the title of Vigilante? You are feared and reviled by citizens. You sail blind without a moral compass, and you have few allies. As a result, however, you are able to drop the crime rate significantly. Edit: (Of note: SpittingTrashcan's rebuttal to my theorized "Vigilante Trade-Off".) I guess my question is: How much can one stretch their moral code in the name of stopping crime before it's unacceptable? And if the answer is "Quite a bit", could it then be argued that Vigilantes are better heroes than Heroes? Annnnd go. (Disclaimer: There is no "right" answer. If there was, there'd be an ideal legal system that no one questions. Please respect others' views and refrain from ad hominem attacks. Thanks!  ) |
by literal definition, that which acts without authority (in other words, no one has ever heard of you before and today is your first day of activity) is unsanctioned and acting outside the legal system in methodology, detention and apprehension. however, a great deal of the definition of 'justice' is defined by the court of public opinion.
the rule of law is the pursuit of justice; justice is inherently defined by the people. (within a criminal system; civil law is a whole other ball of wax.)
using a great many heroes such as superman, spriderman, etc as examples; specific issues such as chain of evidence, dentention methods (ie: webbed to a wall with a note, spiderman no where in sight to provide a witness statement), and excessive violence (guy robs bank, superman puts guy through wall) means that by definition all 'superheroes' are vigilantes as wrote.
public opinion however tends to trump law to a certain extent via sanctioning or whathaveyou. whether that would be enough, or, as is most likely the relative governments decide that having a superpowered individual is not in their best interests would seek to 'restain' or 'control' such activities via leverage xxxx to their own benefit.
/2inf.
Kittens give Morbo gas.
A very good write up, but there is a slight caveat. The DC heroes have, for the most part, worked with the law and as an extension. Even prior to the comic code, heroes were called upon to work with the law. This makes Superman and Batman less vigilantes, more law abiding citizens trying to make citizen arrests.
Marvel on the other hand has otrascized many of the heroes, and very few work with government sanction, and are actively reviled by both citizens and law enforcement.
It all depends on the universe. Some get basic police training, and protection that comes with it as long as they follow the law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
It all depends on the universe.
|
No it doesn't. Marcian's question was about what you would do. The real you, not some comic book adaptation. The real you in the real world.
Quote:
Trouble with Batman is the degree to which he works with and for the police.|
Originally Posted by BlackArachnia
A very good write up, but there is a slight caveat. The DC heroes have, for the most part, worked with the law and as an extension. Even prior to the comic code, heroes were called upon to work with the law. This makes Superman and Batman less vigilantes, more law abiding citizens trying to make citizen arrests.
|
Police generally cannot perform searches absent a warranted supported by probable cause. Evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search will generally be excluded. This exclusionary rule serves to limit POLICE conduct and overreaching.
Scenario: Vigilante breaks into Defendant's house on his own initiative and seizes evidence. Vigilante delivers this information to the police on a silver platter. Because the exclusionary rule does not serve to deter PRIVATE misconduct, the rule does not apply (the remedy of the Defendant is a private lawsuit against Defendant, but the People will not be barred from using the evidence seized at trial).
Scenario 2: Police turn on the Batsignal and tell Batman "We can't do anything about the Joker." Batman breaks into the playing card factory and seizes evidence. If a judge determines that Batman was a state actor (very likely, given the Batsignal atop Gotham Central), then the exclusionary rule applies to evidence seized by Batman.
Otherwise, police would just hire private investigators to break into the homes of suspected criminals and no one would ever need a warrant. Having said that, when was the last time Batman applied for a warrant? His evidence would almost certainly be excluded.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
Quote:
I already said what I would do, Forbin.|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
No it doesn't. Marcian's question was about what you would do. The real you, not some comic book adaptation. The real you in the real world.
|
I was following the tangent about supers being vigilantes by nature and was giving an example as to why that is not always the case.
Sorry. I misunderstood and didn't catch that you were following a tangent. My bad. 
If I had batman-ish "powers" (really training) no, I wouldn't go do the vigilante thing.
I don't think I'd go out saving people, either, given how sue-happy everyone is. "You broke my toe getting me out the window!" "You were going to burn to death." "But you broke my toe! Give me a million dollars for mental anguish!"
I think, instead, I'd set up self-defense classes. Use what I've learned or what I know to teach others to take care of themselves so they are less likely to NEED saving. Train the police, perhaps, as well. Consulting money can't hurt. Viola, no reason to hide my identity, no reason to worry about if what I'm doing is right or wrong, and I'm making a living at it.
Wanted: Origin centric story arcs.
If you've only played an AT once (one set combo) and "hate" it - don't give up. Roll a different combo. It may just be those sets not clicking for you.
Quote:
Much truth here, thats why I say vigilante (your a criminal anyway) so you might as well be a source of extreme deterence.
|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
You'd have to be an idiot to be a vigilante like Batman or Superman. City of Heroes did a great job in covering this by creating the fiction that superheroes are deputized and registered.
|
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Quote:
No harm, no foul.
|
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project
Sorry. I misunderstood and didn't catch that you were following a tangent. My bad.
|
I would rule the Earth with an iron fist. Those who were detrimental to society would be removed from it and there would be no prison. Punishments would be swift and brutal, but fair, and the world would enter utopia.
In other words: Villain.
With Batman/Daredevil level powers, I'd probably go Blue Steel and join the police, or more likely the military. Allows me to use my powers within the law, and at least nominally with 2nd opinions in case I suffer a momentary lapse in judgement. Also provides me with a wage for my do-gooding.
At least, I hope I'm that good a person. It's possible I'll go Rogue, steal enough for me, my family, and friends to live in material comfort, and maybe a few random acts of feel-good vigilantism and/or robin hood robberies.
With Superman or Dr. Manhattan level power, I have a hard time believing I'd resist the urge to acquire material wealth. If I can leverage my powers to create inventions, all well and good, I'll do that, and live off the proceeds. If not, well, it's probably tribute time (though I'd try to only extort totalitarian regimes). Other than that, I'd do what I could in terms of major disaster relief, prevention of clear and egregious human rights abuses and genocides, and try to referee any major wars, at least as far as my conscience demands. But I don't want to be Emperor of the World.
Quote:
It sounds good, but the problem with that is you're shifting the responsibility to someone else - putting your powers under the control of someone else's judgement. |
Originally Posted by Lord of Fnord
With Batman/Daredevil level powers, I'd probably go Blue Steel and join the police, or more likely the military. Allows me to use my powers within the law, and at least nominally with 2nd opinions in case I suffer a momentary lapse in judgement. Also provides me with a wage for my do-gooding.
|
Going back to Rorschach being an example of the vigilante taken to the logical conclusion (the one-man judge, jury, executioner) another character from Watchmen shows the other extreme, the hero who is government sanctioned, working within the law, taking orders - The Comedian; this guy really doesn't have a moral compass, he doesn't need one, someone else tells him what to do, who to kill.
As soon as the powers that be learned of this amazing cop who was bullet-proof, or that soldier who could shoot lasers from his eyes, they'd be re-assigned faster than you could say 'shady government conspiracy'.
I think the government-sanctioned route has the potential to be far worse.
Given that I was voted as "Person most likely to go off the deep end and do a 'Falling Down'" by my friends I guess I'd have to be a Vigilante. Although chances are I'd use my powers against the terminally dim and annoying.
It's probably best if I'm kept away from Super Powers, unless they're exceptionally trivial and harmless : "The power to conjure small helpless animals but not control them in any way" for example should be fine.
"Eat Vole evil-doer... No, wait. Not that way you stupid mammal, this way, attack him..."
Quote:
So we should make you the "bucket of water" Wonder Twin? |
Originally Posted by Carnifax_NA
Given that I was voted as "Person most likely to go off the deep end and do a 'Falling Down'" by my friends I guess I'd have to be a Vigilante. Although chances are I'd use my powers against the terminally dim and annoying.
It's probably best if I'm kept away from Super Powers, unless they're exceptionally trivial and harmless : "The power to conjure small helpless animals but not control them in any way" for example should be fine. "Eat Vole evil-doer... No, wait. Not that way you stupid mammal, this way, attack him..." |
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
Quote:
As I said through one of my characters: |
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
I guess my question is: How much can one stretch their moral code in the name of stopping crime before it's unacceptable? And if the answer is "Quite a bit", could it then be argued that Vigilantes are better heroes than Heroes?
|
"Look at it this way. You're in a boat and it's taking on water. You can dump buckets out of the boat all day long, but if you want to survive, you've got to plug the damned hole."
We can keep putting criminals in jail all we want, but they get out and new criminals show up every day. Obviously the current punishments aren't enough to make criminal activity a less favorable choice.
We have to plug the hole, and given the power to do so, I would do my part.
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
I wouldn't do anything too evil, but I wouldn't follow any one set government's of laws, just my own. So, somewhere in between.
[CENTER]Euro side: [B]@Orion Star[/B] & [B]@Orions Star[/B][/CENTER]
It depends what kind of powers I get.
I think it would be a lot easier to "put yourself above it all" if you were invulnerable and nearly omnipotent like Superman. If I had Supes powers and didn't have to worry about a common criminal getting in a lucky shot and killing me, I'd certainly be more likely to treat them like petulant children.
If I'm more like a Green Arrow, or Daredevil type where going up against guys with guns is a serious risk to my life, I'm going to take fewer chances and therefore be more ruthless.
If I get powers like the Vanisher or Kitty Pryde, It would be dishonest to say I wouldn't be tempted to use them to make my life easier (i.e. become a petty criminal). And if I got time travel powers, I would be stinking rich - Marty had the right idea about that.
(Sometimes, I wish there could be a Dev thumbs up button for quality posts, because you pretty much nailed it.) -- Ghost Falcon
Umm, I would be someone who would abuse my power. I already believe that if I were a cop, I could be bought or bribed. Monetarily or sexually. Though, I am a good guy at heart. Just selfish at times.
Quote:
Agreed. Heck, there's a good deal of evidence that suggests that a greater degree of harshness may actually increase lawless behavior by diminishing the individual's belief in the righteousness of that law. |
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
I just wanted to call this out. More brutal law enforcement is not more effective. This is a commonly held and horribly pernicious fallacy. Casual brutality with an indifferent attitude toward guilt discourages the innocent - and the lesser guilty - from lending vital aid in the form of information, testimony, etcetera. Despite being repeatedly discredited, this "tough on crime" attitude stills informs the public and political will to a dismaying degree. Please do not base your thought experiment on this false premise. Being a vigilante may be more emotionally appealing and it may allow you to force a success in specific cases but on the whole it is not more effective than responsible policing.
|
I always cringe when watching the Hollywood typical "fight the way the bad guys fight is the only way to win" tough-cop fantasies that perpetuate the myth and has so many people believing it's a truism.
I guess that also answers Marcian Tobay's original question, though:
I'd take the heroic path. Heck, I'd probably oppose vigilantism as much as I opposed any criminal act. Its harmful, unnecessary, and more often than not leads to tragedy.
Quote:
But how else would you fight the top level of crime? The kind that know the system and how to exploit it. The kind that trickles down and has much broader effects than your simple thug.|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
I'd take the heroic path. Heck, I'd probably oppose vigilantism as much as I opposed any criminal act. Its harmful, unnecessary, and more often than not leads to tragedy.
|
I'm sorry. You can't stop this kind of crime on a heroic, righteous path.
Where to now?
Check out all my guides and fiction pieces on my blog.
The MFing Warshade | The Last Rule of Tanking | The Got Dam Mastermind
Everything Dark Armor | The Softcap
don'T attempt to read tHis mEssaGe, And believe Me, it is not a codE.
Quote:
While this appeals at a common level, it doesn't stand up well against much criminological or psychological study. Just making a punishment more harsh isn't going to serve as a useful deterrence. To modify a behavior, a deterrent has to have a degree of certainty (likelihood of getting caught), a degree of severity, and a degree of celerity (immediacy).|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
snip...
We can keep putting criminals in jail all we want, but they get out and new criminals show up every day. Obviously the current punishments aren't enough to make criminal activity a less favorable choice. |
We don't have a high arrest rate, so we lack certainty and celerity.... so the common thought is just to ramp up the severity, but this has been shown to have very little behavioral effect. When an act's severity reaches a point where it seems out of proportion to the offense, it can start to lose its effect as a deterrent.
If you believe in "punishment as a deterrent" then we need to find ways to increase celerity (accelerate the criminal justice system) and increase the likelihood of being caught (something a more involved public or "hero" can do without going Vigilante). At the same time, we look at the punishments to see if they've gotten TOO disproportionate to be a useful punishment.
----------------------------------
Sidenote:
When much of the general population thinks about stopping crime, we think of "getting tougher" - and sometimes that can have a reverse effect. A good example was when there was public outcry when it was found that a local prison paid for basic cable (it had 1 tv for 200 inmates and couldn't get any reception via antenna). That was wasteful spending-- coddling the inmates! So it was cut... and rather than save money, it ended up costing more to run the prison.
TV time was one of the few rewards that could be meted out for good behavior. Violent prisoners would be barred from the community room- it was a well-controlled island where any misbehavior had immediate, certain, and proportionate punishment (you were barred from the room for days/weeks/months). It was a subtle social-conditioning tool for rewarding good behavior in a place where CHANGING behavior is one of the goals.
In its place, prisoners had a great deal of idle time. TV was one of the cheapest and most broadly-accessible activities for a prison to offer. Without it, prisoners were left with less to do and more time to interact- and these are people with questionable social skills (at best). Predators that would stay in line to have access to the TV preyed. Nonviolent offenders learned that violence got results- the "law of the jungle." They became tougher to keep in line, requiring more guards, more staff injury claims, more infirmary fees etc.
Heck, the TV even served as a (admittedly very weak) link to outside society- seeing how the mainstream sees, experiencing what many of us experience. As tenuous as this bond may be, it's still one small tie where very few exist. How do we CUT social bonds to productive society, INCREASE bonds to a violent society and then expect a positive outcome? How does increasing their time there help things- particularly for nonviolent offenders?
Don't get me wrong-- this was not a story of "they took my TV! WTFBBQ" rageriots. There was no immediate flashpoint or anything like that... just a documented year-over-year comparison that showed just measurable violence increases, minutely measurable recidivism rate increases, and NOTABLE cost increases when compared to previous years and prisons containing similar prisoners that kept their TV. It's just a note that-- as counterproductive as it sounds-- 'getting tougher' isn't always the answer.
Quote:
Pretty much. My definition of "Hero" wouldn't be able to fight Emperor Cole. If they did, they'd be a Vigilante, and as rejected by the majority of the population as the Resistance are, whether they are right.
|
Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison
But how else would you fight the top level of crime? The kind that know the system and how to exploit it. The kind that trickles down and has much broader effects than your simple thug.
I'm sorry. You can't stop this kind of crime on a heroic, righteous path. |
Quote:
I think that depends on many factors.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
Pretty much. My definition of "Hero" wouldn't be able to fight Emperor Cole. If they did, they'd be a Vigilante, and as rejected by the majority of the population as the Resistance are, whether they are right.
|
Are you as a hero powerful enough to defeat Cole? What about the Hamidon? Are you powerful enough that with some other supers' help you could defeat them?
So there you are all powerful helping people in need. What does Cole do?
One thing that I've realized since we had City of Villains added is that villains initiate trouble. Heroes respond to trouble. Even a pro-active response to a coming issue still needed that coming issue.
It seems to me that with enough power you as a superhero would become the hero the people need and they thought Cole was.
total kick to the gut
This is like having Ra's Al Ghul show up at your birthday party.
And now you both know how the other one feels. Unless either of you are entering this conversation willing to be corrected and convinced, let's move on, shall we?