De-nerfing Pacifism: Cannot Kill - Page 11

Victor Maxus · 05-02-2010, 01:16 PM

Here is a really weird way to look at this.

Every keeps bringing up Batman. The fact is, the very first Batman, as created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger was very much a killer. He was a pulp fiction viglante who killed criminals and had no problem with doing it. (If anything, the first couple dozen Batman stories, he might have Bloodlust instead of cannot kill.) ((And yes, this is the version of Batman that Tim Burton did, the very original concept, that is why the 1989 Batman is more of a violent guy)). But after a while, the editor of DC said that Batman should not use guns anymore (yes, he shot bad guys) and he should not kill. Now, I am not sure the reason for this, but I think it was a marketing ploy. Parents in 1939 and 1940 may not want their sons reading books where the hero is a viscious killer. So, they made a change.

The question for you is this. Did you give your character the can not kill for a sort of image thing? You want your guy to look like the good guy, so you said, hey, he can not kill. Or did you give it to him as a very deep charater concept? He did something that caused death and does not want to repeat it, or witnessed something horrible that he is mentally incapable of killing.

If it is the first reason, perhaps do as others suggest, change the disdvantage to something less restrictive. If it is the second, then keep it, but just be ready to live with the severe results if he should kill some one.

Stone Dog · 05-02-2010, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor Maxus

Now, I am not sure the reason for this, but I think it was a marketing ploy.

It wasn't marketing. It was the Comics Code Authority.

Marketing is trying to sell more stuff. The CCA was about trying to avoid getting shut down by the government.

~~Ragitsu~~ · 05-02-2010, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Victor Maxus

Here is a really weird way to look at this.

Every keeps bringing up Batman. The fact is, the very first Batman, as created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger was very much a killer. He was a pulp fiction viglante who killed criminals and had no problem with doing it.

I agree. The first Batman, and Tim Burton's Batman, are every bit as much a part of the franchise/character as any other.

aesir23 · 05-02-2010, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stone Dog

It wasn't marketing. It was the Comics Code Authority.

IIRC, Batman stopped killing more than a decade before the CCA.

quarkstomper · 05-02-2010, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stone Dog

It wasn't marketing. It was the Comics Code Authority.

Marketing is trying to sell more stuff. The CCA was about trying to avoid getting shut down by the government.

No, you can blame a lot of stuff on the Comics Code, but not Batman's conversion to Code vs. Killing. The shift in Batman's tone occurred long before the CCA was established. I think it was about the time that Robin the Boy Wonder was introduced, which was about a year after Batman started. By that time, Batman had stopped carrying a gun, and although crooks sometimes died afterwards (as the Joker did in his initial appearance, but since he was too good a villain to stay dead, he got better), Batman was not himself the killer.

At least that is my impression from my cursory understanding of Bat-History. Someone with better knowledge could very well prove me wrong.

Victor Maxus · 05-02-2010, 09:10 PM

Well, what ever the reason was is unimportant, the point is that sometimes creating a character can take careful consideration, and a final choice is not always up to the person who created the character. Perhaps Bob and Bill could have stuck by their guns and said...Hey, Batman saw his parents killed, he is filled with rage, he will go on being a killer, that is our concept. But as it was, the went with the softer image part to better fit in.

This goes back to the start of this post. If you want the image of hero type so he won't kill, try a code of honor, or vow or reluctant killer instead and then carry on. If it is concept, then stick with the can not kill and all it's side effects.

HOWEVER, do not change the disadvantage because it does not work out the way you want it too. The Can not Kill is what it is. And right now, the way your GM runs the campaign, this does not fit well with the character. It seems a fast paced style with little time for the hero to brood over mistakes. Much like the editors of Batman did not feel his vigilante image was a good one. Sometimes a change just has to be accpeted.

roguebfl · 05-02-2010, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quarkstomper

At least that is my impression from my cursory understanding of Bat-History. Someone with better knowledge could very well prove me wrong.

After Jason's death and the Disastrous fight with Bane, Batman did start to slip back into his pre-robin day. Tim Drake, a boy hacker and big fan noticed this so tried to get Dick to come back to help Bruce (Dick had become Nightwing by this time) Dick tried to help be he was no lonher willing to assume the sidekick role of Robin that he had out grew... so eventual Tim became Robin, and Batman was but back onto his more normal role.

05-02-2010, 01:16 PM	#101
Victor Maxus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Right Here	Re: De-nerfing Pacifism: Cannot Kill Here is a really weird way to look at this. Every keeps bringing up Batman. The fact is, the very first Batman, as created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger was very much a killer. He was a pulp fiction viglante who killed criminals and had no problem with doing it. (If anything, the first couple dozen Batman stories, he might have Bloodlust instead of cannot kill.) ((And yes, this is the version of Batman that Tim Burton did, the very original concept, that is why the 1989 Batman is more of a violent guy)). But after a while, the editor of DC said that Batman should not use guns anymore (yes, he shot bad guys) and he should not kill. Now, I am not sure the reason for this, but I think it was a marketing ploy. Parents in 1939 and 1940 may not want their sons reading books where the hero is a viscious killer. So, they made a change. The question for you is this. Did you give your character the can not kill for a sort of image thing? You want your guy to look like the good guy, so you said, hey, he can not kill. Or did you give it to him as a very deep charater concept? He did something that caused death and does not want to repeat it, or witnessed something horrible that he is mentally incapable of killing. If it is the first reason, perhaps do as others suggest, change the disdvantage to something less restrictive. If it is the second, then keep it, but just be ready to live with the severe results if he should kill some one. __________________ I am not most people. If I were, there would be a lot more of me.

05-02-2010, 09:10 PM	#106
Victor Maxus Join Date: May 2007 Location: Right Here	Re: De-nerfing Pacifism: Cannot Kill Well, what ever the reason was is unimportant, the point is that sometimes creating a character can take careful consideration, and a final choice is not always up to the person who created the character. Perhaps Bob and Bill could have stuck by their guns and said...Hey, Batman saw his parents killed, he is filled with rage, he will go on being a killer, that is our concept. But as it was, the went with the softer image part to better fit in. This goes back to the start of this post. If you want the image of hero type so he won't kill, try a code of honor, or vow or reluctant killer instead and then carry on. If it is concept, then stick with the can not kill and all it's side effects. HOWEVER, do not change the disadvantage because it does not work out the way you want it too. The Can not Kill is what it is. And right now, the way your GM runs the campaign, this does not fit well with the character. It seems a fast paced style with little time for the hero to brood over mistakes. Much like the editors of Batman did not feel his vigilante image was a good one. Sometimes a change just has to be accpeted. __________________ I am not most people. If I were, there would be a lot more of me.