A question for the heroes

This right here, my bird-brains would say, is why it's always a good idea to have back-up. Being able to call in a couple of friends means not having to leave half of the job undone. The only real question is which bit they'd handle themselves...

Most would go after their family, all things being equal.

They're a pretty tightly-knit group, though, and as a species the Elysion definitely have a lot of that "Mess with one of us and you're messing with ALL of us"-thing in the way they interact with each other. So, it wouldn't be out of the question for any of them to trust other flight members with the task if they felt like they had a better chance of handling the nemesis.

Their response to the goon would be the same no matter what, though. "Of course you know that this means war." They're not terribly forgiving creatures, and threatening a mate, sibling or child would make them very, very grumpy.

The more interesting character to put through a situation like this would actually be my rogue... Unlike the hero-side Elysion, Kestrel doesn't have the rest of the bird-brains to help her. She and her partner are, for the most part, completely on their own. She's very protective of Cardinal... Her first instinct would be to go after him, no matter what her nemesis was threatening to do to the rest of the world. But I'm not so sure she'd act on that instinct. It would depend entirely on exactly what the nemesis was likely to do vs. what they were threatening, and what she thought her odds were of being able to stop them from making TOO terrible a mess if she came back and kicked their butt at a later point.

Either way, that nemesis had best be ready to deal with some serious wrath and hell-fire for even trying a stunt like that. Like I said... 'not the most forgiving creatures in the world, my birds, and unlike those hero-side goodie-goodies who tend to operate inside the bounds of human law, Kes doesn't pull punches. She'd have their head on a plate and their soul fed to a demon before she was done. You mess with anything of hers at your peril.

I'll pick the choice that leads to a Hero Merit.

That's a lot of facepalm. O_O

Going *strictly* by the OP, as opposed to all the hypotheticals - save the family.

If we start adding "but what if" and such, it's not the same as what he's asking. If it's "Save the family or risk having him fire off the doomsday device," well, I'll stop him and mourn the (smaller) loss of life later. If he's no immediate or near-term danger to anyone else - family.

See my Guides and Tutorials

If we're talking the proper pure-hearted all out goodness variety of hero, then save the family. You rescue those who are definitely about to die and then do your best to prevent the possible/probable deaths that might follow from your nemesis escaping. You don't let an innocent (or if we're really goody-goody, a villain) die if you can prevent it. If you have a choice of a definite death or potential death(s), you prevent the definite death - the potential deaths might never happen (and there's still the possibility of preventing them too), but the definite one is here and now and needs to be stopped.. And it doesn't actually matter that it's your family in particular that are about to die, the same is true whoever it is.


But I don't think I'm that pure-hearted all out goodness variety. My world view falls a lot more in line with the more pragmatic realistic approach which says pick the option that will (likely) prevent the most deaths. If the nemesis has been killing people previously, and it's been tough to track down and catch them, then unless you have good reason to believe one of the above will change you can be pretty sure they'll kill more before you catch them again. So, assuming the time-to-catch:nemesis-kill-rate is higher than one family, you go with the option that saves the most lives in the long run, which is take down the nemesis. People are going to die either way, and all you can really hope for is damage control.

That said, I do still feel a certain draw towards the uncompromising approach of the former - that you save the person needing saved right now, no matter the consequences further down the line. Even if you know that ultimately it will (probably) mean a greater number of people die, you never knowingly let the ones here and now perish. You can't control the future, only what you do right now, so you always pick what's "right" then and there. Plus I'm not sure I'm swayed by the idea that X deaths is better than X+Y deaths. I'm not sure how easily I could explain it, but in my head it feels like a single person dying is the same as ten thousand people dying is the same as ten million people dying, that volume does not make it any worse.

So to be honest, I have no idea which I'd actually pick if I somehow found myself in that scenario.

I'd send an asteroid on a collision course with the bank.

[ edit ]
Hmm, thinking about that, might not be the target audience.

Kill the hostage.























No, no! I meant "Shoot" the hostage! "Shoot", not kill! Definitely not kill!

Yeah, shoot the hostage.






Wuh, whattaya mean "too late"?

I would save my loved ones. Human life is more important than justice. Besides, he will not escape forever!

Obviously, if I'd been so committed to the spouse in order to have such a relationship while performing as a super hero... I'd have to chose to save them (certainly in this case).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judgement_Dave Are we to assume a spouse and offspring that you actually like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EU_Damz Hey it is a fantasy world after all

I lol'd

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jophiel I don't even see where it has to be family -- the hero's primary goal should be the safety of others. A couple people in real, immediate distress should trump hypothetical (even if probable) distress in the future.

Troof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronze Knight ... In my opinion anyone engaging in Heroic activities should know that having nonpowered friends places them in great danger simply by caring for them. The true hero sacrifices his right to have emotions for others in order to benefit others.

Easy to say... not so easy to do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bright This right here, my bird-brains would say, is why it's always a good idea to have back-up....

Okay, I thought this was going to be about keeping a mistress as a backup plan... my bad.

I would just stand there, transfixed in indecision, until either my nemesis got away or the building exploded. At that point, woot! No more moral quandary!

Well... If the Crook was a "normal" bad guy who wouldn't just blow away everyone in the bank, then I'd save the family first then chase them down later as theyre making their getaway.

If however he was a maniac or some such that you were certain would murder a bank full of folks then one would be duty bound to go stop that crime first and then attempt a rescue... Or even bargain for their safe release with a barely breathin' beat up Vilian.

Though in a world FILLED with heroes like Paragon you'd get help. Game form this would be a league with 2 teams Lam style and have one group storm the bank and the other the building with the hostages.

"I always think it adds resonance to a hero's mission, to have some defining element of tragedy in his background, don't you?" - the Joker

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite