Capebusters -- brainstorming a single-setting game

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

Each country has its own means to ratify treaties, as well, and no nation will sign a treaty that overtly violates its own laws.

That means the U.S. government cannot sign a treaty that violates the U.S. Constitution's protections for due process; t

But then you have no idea what the treaty's terms are.

(In Captain America: Civil War, the means by which the Sokovia Accords went active was pretty silly, and the Raft was wholly unconstitutional.)

No it wasn't. Ain't nothing in the Constitution saying you can't build an oceanic holding facility for criminals. Not giving them a trial would be a violation of due process (although there are still dozens of accused terrorists who aren't getting due process under the imprimatur of wartime powers), but we weren't told they weren't going to be given a trial.

As to this, what a nation like the United States could do is reinstate draft registration broadening it to include women, define anyone using paranomal powers to commit violence without governmental remit as a "terrorist" and send hit squads and drone strikes out to foreign countries to eliminate paranormal draft evaders on the grounds that they are suspected of being one of Varuna's terrorists.

All quite constitutional, given that the United States regards itself as being at war. I have no idea what the U.N. treaty is for.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by PTTG

Anyone know a good way to build a touch-range upgrade power? Basically, the empowered individual is capable of "upgrading" a machine or tool held in hand. The exact effects of the upgrade are flexible, but mainly I'm thinking dramatically improved performance without any new features. Ideally enough to make a significant difference in combat. I'm not yet sure if this should be only-one-item-at-a-time or possibly a lingering buff they can apply to allies' gear.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Instant Gadgeteer (Limited to performance upgrades.)

You could manage this with Imbuement, too, if you were inclined, but that might not be as flexible.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But then you have no idea what the treaty's terms are.




No it wasn't. Ain't nothing in the Constitution saying you can't build an oceanic holding facility for criminals. Not giving them a trial would be a violation of due process (although there are still dozens of accused terrorists who aren't getting due process under the imprimatur of wartime powers), but we weren't told they weren't going to be given a trial.

As to this, what a nation like the United States could do is reinstate draft registration broadening it to include women, define anyone using paranomal powers to commit violence without governmental remit as a "terrorist" and send hit squads and drone strikes out to foreign countries to eliminate paranormal draft evaders on the grounds that they are suspected of being one of Varuna's terrorists.

All quite constitutional, given that the United States regards itself as being at war. I have no idea what the U.N. treaty is for.

This is why people tend to point out that the letter of the law alone is insufficient for understanding what is and isn't constitutional/just/etc.

[tshiggins]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

But then you have no idea what the treaty's terms are.

I'm only going by what we saw, and the movie didn't even mention necessary ratification by the U.S. Senate. The terms aren't even discussed, really -- all I'm talking about is the process of passage and implementation.

Was it a simplification for the sake of the movie? Almost certainly. Is it necessary to simplify in such a way for a game? Not at all.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

No it wasn't. Ain't nothing in the Constitution saying you can't build an oceanic holding facility for criminals. Not giving them a trial would be a violation of due process (although there are still dozens of accused terrorists who aren't getting due process under the imprimatur of wartime powers), but we weren't told they weren't going to be given a trial.

Again, that wasn't discussed. However, it was clear that none of the incarcerated people had been given access to legal representation, nor was this issue even discussed. Moreover, this denial of the right to counsel -- unconstitutional even for incarcerated foreign nationals -- had happened to U.S. citizens.

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

As to this, what a nation like the United States could do is reinstate draft registration broadening it to include women, define anyone using paranomal powers to commit violence without governmental remit as a "terrorist" and send hit squads and drone strikes out to foreign countries to eliminate paranormal draft evaders on the grounds that they are suspected of being one of Varuna's terrorists.

I could almost buy the argument that anybody who uses superpowers without official sanction could be labeled a terrorist. However, even accused terrorists have constitutionally-protected rights -- especially if they're U.S. citizens.

As for being targeted just because they flee the country and refuse to register, that's a pretty steep slippery slope.

The thing to remember is that, in most democratic societies, everyone should receive the equal protection of the law, and that includes accused criminals. In fact, large portions of the laws in such societies are devoted to how to balance the rights of criminals with the need to protect the public, because law enforcers throughout history have been used to suppress anybody disliked by those who benefit from the status quo.

The sudden emergence of those with superpowers threaten the status quo, no matter what. Moreover, the potential for surreal violence makes it absolutely necessary to create a rapid-response team. The real question is, what would be the limits of the power exercised by that team?

Remember, limits result in conflict, and conflict drives stories. Tony Stark made the point that the exercise of power, without limit, inevitably results in harm to others. Steve Rogers made the excellent counter-point that those who control those with power have even more power, themselves, and who watches the watchmen?

Any GM who runs a campaign in which characters of extraordinary abilities operate as law enforcement, in something that resembles the modern world, needs to think through those issues.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by tshiggins

I'm only going by what we saw, and the movie didn't even mention necessary ratification by the U.S. Senate. The terms aren't even discussed, really -- all I'm talking about is the process of passage and implementation.

The Sokovia Accords hadn't been implemented in any way during the movie. They weren't being arrested for violating it, but for aiding and abetting a wanted man in his flight from the authorities. And it's not really relevant. The Sokovia Accords appears to have been an attempt to recreate the same panel that used to run herd on SHIELD only with less Hydra infiltration and now it would be jogging the elbow of a team of the most powerful superheroes in the world (or at least the ones prepared to go along with this nonsense) and that team would now be the ones saying "And I ignored that order because it's a dumbass one". The Accords, from what little we can gather, wouldn't affect Jessica Jones or Spider-Man or the Secret Warriors except in terms of negative space. Which is to say that national governments might decide to ruthlessly hunt down every weirdo within their borders, except they'd have signed a treaty saying "hands off Avengers in good standing". The real power of the international panel would have been "We get to decide who is an Avenger in good standing and therefore legally immune." A power they'd have to use as judiciously as any nuclear option.

But this treaty in the game setting has nothing to do with that. At a guess from the title and the campaign premise it would be a blanket condemnation of paranormals using their powers against other people, or in any way that might pose a threat to human safety without the let of the duly constituted authorities, and authorizing the creation of a joint task force whose job would be to cross borders (presumably with the permission and at the request of the relevant national government) and hunt down the paranormals who defy that. Presumably those who survive being hunted would be turned over to local authorities for imprisonment, forced service or execution if they want them.

I could almost buy the argument that anybody who uses superpowers without official sanction could be labeled a terrorist. However, even accused terrorists have constitutionally-protected rights -- especially if they're U.S. citizens.

And Japanese-Americans had constitutionally protected rights in World War II. How'd that work out for them? Apart from that, there's no constitutionally protected right against being drafted in "wartime". And there's no constitutionally protected right against being captured or assassinated on foreign soil by the CIA or the American military provided that that you have been defined as an enemy combatant...even if you are an American citizen. And it's really, really easy to define a rogue super as a combatant when they are more combat capable than a typical, or even an exceptional infantryman.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The Sokovia Accords hadn't been implemented in any way during the movie. They weren't being arrested for violating it, but for aiding and abetting a wanted man in his flight from the authorities. And it's not really relevant. The Sokovia Accords appears to have been an attempt to recreate the same panel that used to run herd on SHIELD only with less Hydra infiltration and now it would be jogging the elbow of a team of the most powerful superheroes in the world (or at least the ones prepared to go along with this nonsense) and they would now be the ones saying "And I ignored that order because it's a dumbass one". The Accords, from what little we can gather, wouldn't affect Jessica Jones or Spider-Man or the Secret Warriors except in terms of negative space. Which is to say that national governments might decide to ruthlessly hunt down every weirdo within their borders, except they'd have signed a treaty saying "hands off Avengers in good standing". The real power of the international panel would have been "We get to decide who is an Avenger in good standing and therefore legally immune." A power they'd have to use as judiciously as any nuclear option.

At the end of the movie, Sam, Wanda, Clint, and Scott are being rescued from a prison run by General Ross, to whom they were turned over by Tony Stark, and who appears to be an official spokesman for the Sokovia Accords, given his earlier discussions with the Avengers. I don't see how that is compatible with the claim that the Sokovia Accords were not implemented in Civil War.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by whswhs

At the end of the movie, Sam, Wanda, Clint, and Scott are being rescued from a prison run by General Ross, to whom they were turned over by Tony Stark, and who appears to be an official spokesman for the Sokovia Accords, given his earlier discussions with the Avengers. I don't see how that is compatible with the claim that the Sokovia Accords were not implemented in Civil War.

General Ross was the head of the federal agency that handled super affairs. Of course he had a prison. That has nothing to do with the Sokovia Accords.

[PTTG]

What I'm getting here is that perhaps the events of 2018 are insufficient, but a big enough disaster will allow anything.

Perhaps they actually do gain control of the missiles? Perhaps they accidentally/intentionally launch one or several? A megadeath or two goes a long way to justifying international police powers.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

General Ross was the head of the federal agency that handled super affairs. Of course he had a prison. That has nothing to do with the Sokovia Accords.

That does not seem consistent with the way things are presented in the movie. For one thing, there is no previous evidence of such an agency existing. For another, everything he said about his planned actions involved things the US was committed to do as a signatory to the Sokovia Accords. Of course he was taking action in his role as a US official; that's how such international agreements are normally implemented. But for exactly that reason, his being a US official does not count in any way as evidence that the Accords weren't involved.

Moreover, the people who were locked up were taken into custody by the official Avengers, the ones who had signed the Accords: Tony Stark, James Rhodes, Natasha Romanoff (though she bailed out), and the Vision. The fact that Ross accepted custody of the other four, and didn't put Tony or Rhodey or the Vision under arrest for unauthorized use of superpowers, makes it clear that he accepted what they were doing as an authorized action of the Avengers, even if he did so after the fact. And the only agency that could authorize the Avengers to do anything was whatever agency the Accords set up.

(The other two members of Tony's team are more problematic. T'challa could probably deal with any questions about his involvement by claiming diplomatic immunity. But Tony might end up having to decide whether to turn a high school kid over to "Thunderbolt" Ross. On the other hand, Tony seems to be getting away with it for the moment. And if one thing is clear from the whole MCU, it's that Tony doesn't think things through carefully!)

[Gold & Appel Inc]

Originally Posted by PTTG

*8 - A mortal hero who faced and overcame gods through great trials.

If you want to get technical here, Odysseus (Ulysses) was actually the great-grandson of Hermes (Mercury), so not exactly 100% mortal. Most of the heroes of the Iliad weren't.