Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-03-2018, 09:39 AM   #61
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Cule View Post
But old revolutionaries are not allowed to do what they did to bring about the new society once the new society is achieved.
I don't think that can be stated as a general rule. Lots of revolutions that used coercive methods have gone on to create postrevolutionary societies that were equally coercive, or more so. France, Russia, China, Cuba, and Cambodia are all cases in point. The American Revolution is something of an exception in modern history.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 09:44 AM   #62
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

I think that a lot of old revolutionary regimes would have done a lot better if the revolutionaries had retired after the revolution.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 09:53 AM   #63
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Cule View Post
And yeah, there is an element of coercion in the terms as offered. It reminds me of employers who give you a job and then say you're not entitled to your own political viewpoint if you want to keep it.
Well, you know, I think employers do have a right to do that; I'm in favor of "at will" employment. But aside from special cases, such as a person employed to speak on behalf of an advocacy organization (should Planned Parenthood be allowed to require official spokespeople not to condemn abortion as murder?), I don't think it should be exercised. Freedom of choice includes the right to make choices I disapprove of, and indeed that right has to be defended, because it's the first attack point—it used to be said that people who wanted censorship would always start by going after pornography, though a more modern example would be going after hate speech.

But I wouldn't call an employer who did so a heroic figure. And this is a thread about revolutionaries as superheroes. That requires a certain measure of respect or even admiration for the means they use to pursue their ends, even if I disagree with those ends. And it seems to me that someone who says, "Okay, you've got a nice cancer-free lung there, be a shame if anything happened to it," doesn't merit my admiration.
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 10:47 AM   #64
smurf
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I don't think that can be stated as a general rule. Lots of revolutions that used coercive methods have gone on to create postrevolutionary societies that were equally coercive, or more so. France, Russia, China, Cuba, and Cambodia are all cases in point. The American Revolution is something of an exception in modern history.
That's the problem, these are blanket versions of 'revolution'. In that list there are 4 types of revolution.

Within 6 weeks of the French 1789 revolution Serfdom was abolitioned. The peasantry would no longer accept Serfdom. The revolutionaries also made it mandatory for everyone to learn French and the Metric system. About 20% actually spoke French and there were a myriad of measurements being used too.

Maybe the Heroes could have shown up at the Battle of Valmy against the Austro Hungarians?

Napoleon represents a conslidating force. Similar to Washington and Cromwell. The Imperial Guard could be Super Tough Troops that could heal from their wounds quickly?

Russia 1917 in February there was no 'Super' Lenin or Bolsheviks the Kerensky Government continued with what the Tsar did which lead to the October events. Lenin was still fairly marginal, Trotsky had a name in the Soviets. There was freedom for Finland (their revolution was quite a contrast to what happend in Russia), votes for all (but a ban on secret ballots), marriage and divorce liberalised, homosexuality decriminalised, teaching reading and writing. Eventually it goes a bit wrong all of the gains were reversed by Stalin?

Maybe the Heroes would fight in the Civil War - there were at least 5 sides! Even post 1928 there could be a sinister force at play to coerce the population (the reality was the working class was nigh destroyed and the peasantry were not (historically never) capable of challenging authority).

The Chinese experience was one of a specialised group of intellectuals. With a mass peasant army. 1949 saw Mao take power by asking everyone to continue working (the working class and the police force).

Maybe the Heroes were good at marching, a 1,000 or so Super Heroes of immense stamina?

During the Cultural Revolution Mao actually swam the river quickly and other Red Guard units were Super powered fanatics?

Likewise in Cuba, Che and Castro entered Havana without any help from the working class or much resistance. 800 or so 'liberators' took over Cuba. Maybe the Super Heroes were good at hiding and fighting in small groups to arm the peasants?

The term Revolution should be prefixed with an adjective: Bourgois, Political, Social and also the Coup d'etat which is a form of Political Revolution along with National Liberation. Effectively each Revolution needs to be looked at what it tries to achieve and what it achieved.

However you may wish to ham it up or take a more nuanced approach. The biggest risk of Revolutionary Supers is the cult of personality.
smurf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 11:23 AM   #65
whswhs
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lawrence, KS
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf View Post
However you may wish to ham it up or take a more nuanced approach. The biggest risk of Revolutionary Supers is the cult of personality.
I think there are two basic approaches you can take here:

Supers participated in the known historic revolutions, and contributed to their known outcomes. In this version, supers are not actually "super"; they're more like cinematic or folkloric concretizations of the conflicts that were going on among normal human beings, akin to "Liberty Leading the Masses" or Captain America, but they don't have historical agency in their own right.

Supers are powerful enough to exercise agency in their own right, and to change the course of history—the "great man" theory of history written even larger. In this case you don't have the same revolutions, or not only the same revolutions. The measure of a movement's power may be not its ability to recruit large numbers of people to support it, but its ability to recruit, or even create, superhumanly powerful beings who can wield the power of an army or a state without having the population of a state. Of course this implies a different model of social organization: not merely aristocratic but more like the way a mere handful of Mongols could dominate the whole of China. "Concerning gods we have the belief, and concerning men the certainty, that . . . the strong do what they can, and the weak do what they must," as Herodotus had the Athenians say.

It seems to me that "cult of personality" doesn't quite come to grips with this latter form; it envisions a situation where in reality you have the former model, but you have the illusion of its being the latter model, and that illusion is itself perhaps a tool of power (as if the "man of steel" were not Clark Kent but Joseph Vissarionovitch Djugashvili). But what if the key actor were not merely a human being playing a superheroic role, but an actual superhuman? (As Spengler put it in his speech about National Socialism, not a heroic tenor but a hero?)

(David Brin's "Thor Versus Captain America" addresses this, in a way.)
__________________
Bill Stoddard

I don't think we're in Oz any more.
whswhs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 02:13 PM   #66
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Since we seem to be getting further afield from the idea of a current-day revolutionary superhero, I'll note another source that can be used to look at a possible revolutionary super - Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion. The titular character isn't a traditional superhero, but has the ability to force anyone making eye contact with him to follow a direct order... once. He leverages this alongside, in GURPS terms, his high IQ, Leadership, Strategy, and Tactics skills (amongst others) to take over a weak revolutionary group and transform it into a world-altering organization.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 03:02 PM   #67
Astromancer
 
Astromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Virginia
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by smurf View Post

The way for influence is not to decree orders but to win a debate. When the audience internalises the argument and goes out to act on it. This is not the case of being a great leader or having great leadership but being that great leader and having that great leadership at a given moment in time.
And yet the Soviets, the Chinese, the Cubans, and others I assume you'd be enamored of, went the opposite way. Napoleon certainly acted like the mythic hero. Washington chose a better myth, Cincinnatus, and his revolution had a better outcome.

You ignore that most revolutions have periods of war and other forms of civil strife. Place a pro-revolution Superhero in the mix and they could prevent a lot of needless death and speed the revolutionary victory.

Quote:
Souper Duper Dude treats everyone as equals, despite his own Super Abilities. He goes on demonstrations, gives out leaflets, chairs meetings debates down the pub politely and can knock out a pamphlet or two. People may respect him. Then the it all blows up into action...

Female Hero is in front of a demonstration and the cameras look on her and she gives a great speech on why they are there and what they want and declares a strike or a sit in. She becomes a sort of Dela Croix's Liberty figure or Katniss?

Both of them are in a political party and pay subs and are disciplined like anyone else.
Your images seem reactionary. A Madison Avenue take on Revolution.
__________________
Per Ardua Per Astra!


Ancora Imparo
Astromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 03:44 PM   #68
Michael Cule
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I don't think that can be stated as a general rule. Lots of revolutions that used coercive methods have gone on to create postrevolutionary societies that were equally coercive, or more so. France, Russia, China, Cuba, and Cambodia are all cases in point. The American Revolution is something of an exception in modern history.
I think you should ask the 'Tory' families who were looted of their possessions for being 'traitors' to a nation they had never sworn loyalty to and which didn't exist at the time of the alleged deeds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
Well, you know, I think employers do have a right to do that; I'm in favor of "at will" employment. But aside from special cases, such as a person employed to speak on behalf of an advocacy organization (should Planned Parenthood be allowed to require official spokespeople not to condemn abortion as murder?), I don't think it should be exercised. Freedom of choice includes the right to make choices I disapprove of, and indeed that right has to be defended, because it's the first attack point—it used to be said that people who wanted censorship would always start by going after pornography, though a more modern example would be going after hate speech.

But I wouldn't call an employer who did so a heroic figure. And this is a thread about revolutionaries as superheroes. That requires a certain measure of respect or even admiration for the means they use to pursue their ends, even if I disagree with those ends. And it seems to me that someone who says, "Okay, you've got a nice cancer-free lung there, be a shame if anything happened to it," doesn't merit my admiration.
Well, 'at will' employment is the very definition of a dick move and reduces members of a liberal democracy to the position of serfs. And my move away from libertarianism included the realisation that it was a fine philosophy for those who wanted to be barons.

But you make a good point about the ignobility of the proposed magical healer. It is even more like creating a perfectly workable program... with built in bugs and back doors. A trick that we all have reason to fear nowadays.

You have persuaded me on a small point! Well done!
__________________
Michael Cule,
Genius for Hire,
Gaming Dinosaur Second Class
Michael Cule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 04:07 PM   #69
PTTG
 
PTTG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs View Post
I don't think, though, that it applies to paying a private citizen to advocate a political cause, and those are likely many of the people who would be targeted; ordinary government officials aren't all that influential either.

But, you know, I still think that "I made this fatal illness go away, but if you don't take the position I want, I'll bring it back" sounds like a threat of death; it goes beyond simple bribery. I think a contract law judge would probably go for calling it duress, at the very least.

At a certain point, it's time to say, "I'm a doctor, not an extortionist."
Interestingly enough, nobody's pointed out yet that the basic deal -- "do what I want or your medical conditions will kill you" -- is exactly what health insurance companies offer every day. The biggest difference is merely that the insurance companies want to profit financially for their service.
PTTG is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2018, 04:32 PM   #70
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: Revolutionary Supers

Well, only the USA has been willing to give health insurance companies that much power, and the health care sector is now over 20% of its GDP, which is evidence of an absurd economic imbalance. By comparison, Canada, with a health care system that exceeds the USA on every performance metric (especially in the prevention of maternal and child mortality), spends half as much money on health care and provides quality health care to all of its citizens. The health care costs of the USA are a massive private tax on the economy, hindering individual and business investment, and really only benefitting the administrators and investors of the health care sector.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
supers

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.