What kind of hero are you?

[Thom001]

What kind of hero are you? Myself I haven't played in heroes unlimited yet don't have the books) but in the games in rifts where we have used the powers in the conversion book I usually am an anti hero mercenary for hire that hates his conscience in the world of decay and savagery that rifts is.

[Thom001]

Just to be clear because it might not be clear, the option of no secret identity meant a hero who is a hero all of the time and has no other persona.

[Nightmask]

I think some definition of 'Modern Good' could be used, that seems way more vague and can mean many different things (unlike classic good).

[taalismn]

*Modern Good(Let's be real, folks)
*Answerable to Government/Military(Yeah, it means some fink might squeal or sell us out, but it's nice to have legal/fire support if it goes down bad)
*Fish Tacos---Because you gotta balance that seriousness and realism with some absurdity. Bring on the Cthulu plushies!

[Thom001]

I think some definition of 'Modern Good' could be used, that seems way more vague and can mean many different things (unlike classic good).

I only meant that the comic characters written back in the day (WW2 era) were at one point a story written to entertain but also had a certain message inside that really seemed like it was your own parents lecturing you. Some good examples would be a hero that feels a hero shouldn't swear, or rough up the bad guys. That a hero should also comment on things like eating right means healthy child becomes healthy adult. Basically I'm referring to the type of hero that feel in addition to being a stalwart, brave and gallant hero, he must be a shining example of a role model to all, especially children.

Modern good refers to a character of principled or scrupulous alignment that doesn't necessarily feel the need to shine so brightly in the spotlight.

[Ranger]

I like playing Viglianties or Anti-Heroes. the SUperman types just annoy me.

[Nightmask]

I think some definition of 'Modern Good' could be used, that seems way more vague and can mean many different things (unlike classic good).

I only meant that the comic characters written back in the day (WW2 era) were at one point a story written to entertain but also had a certain message inside that really seemed like it was your own parents lecturing you. Some good examples would be a hero that feels a hero shouldn't swear, or rough up the bad guys. That a hero should also comment on things like eating right means healthy child becomes healthy adult. Basically I'm referring to the type of hero that feel in addition to being a stalwart, brave and gallant hero, he must be a shining example of a role model to all, especially children.

Modern good refers to a character of principled or scrupulous alignment that doesn't necessarily feel the need to shine so brightly in the spotlight.

The WW2 era (i.e. Golden Age) actually had a fair more of what would be considered 'modern' to it than people recognize (including a Superman who didn't worry about killing crooks and had no problems ignoring the law), it's more the Silver Age where they tended to focus on the not swearing and not using excessive force on criminals (which to be fair that's STILL considered the morally right thing to do, hence why police have to be mindful of how much force they use).

The thing is though the Modern Good isn't really that different than Classic Good, and if you're actually being a hero either version is supposed to recognize he's going to end up a role model like it or not and behave accordingly. So he shouldn't be casually beating up criminals and acting so openly offensive or immoral, at least not in his hero ID. He ought to have enough self-control to skip that kind of behavior if he's going to be a hero otherwise he's not actually being a hero he's on the vigilante/anti-hero side.

[Thom001]

I think some definition of 'Modern Good' could be used, that seems way more vague and can mean many different things (unlike classic good).

I only meant that the comic characters written back in the day (WW2 era) were at one point a story written to entertain but also had a certain message inside that really seemed like it was your own parents lecturing you. Some good examples would be a hero that feels a hero shouldn't swear, or rough up the bad guys. That a hero should also comment on things like eating right means healthy child becomes healthy adult. Basically I'm referring to the type of hero that feel in addition to being a stalwart, brave and gallant hero, he must be a shining example of a role model to all, especially children.

Modern good refers to a character of principled or scrupulous alignment that doesn't necessarily feel the need to shine so brightly in the spotlight.

The WW2 era (i.e. Golden Age) actually had a fair more of what would be considered 'modern' to it than people recognize (including a Superman who didn't worry about killing crooks and had no problems ignoring the law), it's more the Silver Age where they tended to focus on the not swearing and not using excessive force on criminals (which to be fair that's STILL considered the morally right thing to do, hence why police have to be mindful of how much force they use).

The thing is though the Modern Good isn't really that different than Classic Good, and if you're actually being a hero either version is supposed to recognize he's going to end up a role model like it or not and behave accordingly. So he shouldn't be casually beating up criminals and acting so openly offensive or immoral, at least not in his hero ID. He ought to have enough self-control to skip that kind of behavior if he's going to be a hero otherwise he's not actually being a hero he's on the vigilante/anti-hero side.

My mistake about the golden/silver age thing. However, now I have the question of the comics written before WW2, are they grouped in with golden age then? Or do they have another name?

My next question then is what is Daredevil or Spider-man or even Captain America considered? All of the comics of those titles the character is offensive (the wise-cracking spider-man), or casually beats up criminals (daredevil or captain America).

When thinking about it, I would have to say what I remember of reading comics growing up the majority of the heroes in marvel, image, or dark horse comics do not fit into that box of role model material heroes. It really just seems to be the majority of DC heroes only (not including batman, green arrow, or Aquaman).

I guess I'm more wondering if those characters really can't be described that way or simply, and more possible, by the time I read these comics they had been made to be darker. But if the latter is the case then should we re-evaluate what it means to be a good hero of today vs. what it meant to be a good hero of yesterday?

[Nightmask]

I think some definition of 'Modern Good' could be used, that seems way more vague and can mean many different things (unlike classic good).

I only meant that the comic characters written back in the day (WW2 era) were at one point a story written to entertain but also had a certain message inside that really seemed like it was your own parents lecturing you. Some good examples would be a hero that feels a hero shouldn't swear, or rough up the bad guys. That a hero should also comment on things like eating right means healthy child becomes healthy adult. Basically I'm referring to the type of hero that feel in addition to being a stalwart, brave and gallant hero, he must be a shining example of a role model to all, especially children.

Modern good refers to a character of principled or scrupulous alignment that doesn't necessarily feel the need to shine so brightly in the spotlight.

The WW2 era (i.e. Golden Age) actually had a fair more of what would be considered 'modern' to it than people recognize (including a Superman who didn't worry about killing crooks and had no problems ignoring the law), it's more the Silver Age where they tended to focus on the not swearing and not using excessive force on criminals (which to be fair that's STILL considered the morally right thing to do, hence why police have to be mindful of how much force they use).

The thing is though the Modern Good isn't really that different than Classic Good, and if you're actually being a hero either version is supposed to recognize he's going to end up a role model like it or not and behave accordingly. So he shouldn't be casually beating up criminals and acting so openly offensive or immoral, at least not in his hero ID. He ought to have enough self-control to skip that kind of behavior if he's going to be a hero otherwise he's not actually being a hero he's on the vigilante/anti-hero side.

My mistake about the golden/silver age thing. However, now I have the question of the comics written before WW2, are they grouped in with golden age then? Or do they have another name?

My next question then is what is Daredevil or Spider-man or even Captain America considered? All of the comics of those titles the character is offensive (the wise-cracking spider-man), or casually beats up criminals (daredevil or captain America).

When thinking about it, I would have to say what I remember of reading comics growing up the majority of the heroes in marvel, image, or dark horse comics do not fit into that box of role model material heroes. It really just seems to be the majority of DC heroes only (not including batman, green arrow, or Aquaman).

I guess I'm more wondering if those characters really can't be described that way or simply, and more possible, by the time I read these comics they had been made to be darker. But if the latter is the case then should we re-evaluate what it means to be a good hero of today vs. what it meant to be a good hero of yesterday?

The Golden age generally includes the comics prior to WWII (although they can also end up labeled Pulp era comics, like Doc Savage).

Also not sure what comics you've been reading that you think Spider-man qualifies as offensive (outside of post-OMD and that 'superior' Spider-man nonsense), or that Daredevil and Cap just go around casually assaulting criminals. None of them fit those labels. They'll warn criminals (where applicable), give them a chance to surrender (again where applicable) and only use enough force to apprehend someone they aren't just beating on them because they get off on it or something.

There are also misconceptions about the Silver Age of comics, as some think it was an era of camp or pure idealism and it really wasn't especially not DC. Contrary to what the Identity Crisis storyarc would have you think superheroes including Superman routinely mind-wiped people both civilians and super-villains if they learned sensitive information particularly someone's secret ID. Heck in the issue where Major Disaster revealed Hal Jordan's and Barry Allen's secret ID to there respective Love Interests Jordan complains about how often he's had to mind-wipe sensitive information and Superman had no problems using an amnesia virus on his love interest Lana Lang in college even though it wiped an entire day's worth of her memories because she had JUST glimpsed his super-costume he had tucked into one of his college textbooks rather than try and find some other way (imagine losing an entire day of information in college).

What it means to be a good hero really hasn't changed, but the writers of the comics have backlashed against those aspects of heroes and so we ended up from the 90s on with horribly angsty stuff, thinking that somehow heroes should somehow never be seen being nice or decent or even just having a good laugh with friends because that's 'campy' (suffering from that 'true art is angsty' trope) rather than NORMAL behavior. Frankly what you see heroes going through today is so insanely beyond belief, with heroes going from one traumatic event to another, there shouldn't be any of them who doesn't need intensive therapy and they all should be in the kind of shape or far worse than Stark was in Iron Man 3 due to his PTSD from the battle in Avengers.

[Thom001]

I think some definition of 'Modern Good' could be used, that seems way more vague and can mean many different things (unlike classic good).

I only meant that the comic characters written back in the day (WW2 era) were at one point a story written to entertain but also had a certain message inside that really seemed like it was your own parents lecturing you. Some good examples would be a hero that feels a hero shouldn't swear, or rough up the bad guys. That a hero should also comment on things like eating right means healthy child becomes healthy adult. Basically I'm referring to the type of hero that feel in addition to being a stalwart, brave and gallant hero, he must be a shining example of a role model to all, especially children.

Modern good refers to a character of principled or scrupulous alignment that doesn't necessarily feel the need to shine so brightly in the spotlight.

The WW2 era (i.e. Golden Age) actually had a fair more of what would be considered 'modern' to it than people recognize (including a Superman who didn't worry about killing crooks and had no problems ignoring the law), it's more the Silver Age where they tended to focus on the not swearing and not using excessive force on criminals (which to be fair that's STILL considered the morally right thing to do, hence why police have to be mindful of how much force they use).

The thing is though the Modern Good isn't really that different than Classic Good, and if you're actually being a hero either version is supposed to recognize he's going to end up a role model like it or not and behave accordingly. So he shouldn't be casually beating up criminals and acting so openly offensive or immoral, at least not in his hero ID. He ought to have enough self-control to skip that kind of behavior if he's going to be a hero otherwise he's not actually being a hero he's on the vigilante/anti-hero side.

My mistake about the golden/silver age thing. However, now I have the question of the comics written before WW2, are they grouped in with golden age then? Or do they have another name?

My next question then is what is Daredevil or Spider-man or even Captain America considered? All of the comics of those titles the character is offensive (the wise-cracking spider-man), or casually beats up criminals (daredevil or captain America).

When thinking about it, I would have to say what I remember of reading comics growing up the majority of the heroes in marvel, image, or dark horse comics do not fit into that box of role model material heroes. It really just seems to be the majority of DC heroes only (not including batman, green arrow, or Aquaman).

I guess I'm more wondering if those characters really can't be described that way or simply, and more possible, by the time I read these comics they had been made to be darker. But if the latter is the case then should we re-evaluate what it means to be a good hero of today vs. what it meant to be a good hero of yesterday?

The Golden age generally includes the comics prior to WWII (although they can also end up labeled Pulp era comics, like Doc Savage).

Also not sure what comics you've been reading that you think Spider-man qualifies as offensive (outside of post-OMD and that 'superior' Spider-man nonsense), or that Daredevil and Cap just go around casually assaulting criminals. None of them fit those labels. They'll warn criminals (where applicable), give them a chance to surrender (again where applicable) and only use enough force to apprehend someone they aren't just beating on them because they get off on it or something.

There are also misconceptions about the Silver Age of comics, as some think it was an era of camp or pure idealism and it really wasn't especially not DC. Contrary to what the Identity Crisis storyarc would have you think superheroes including Superman routinely mind-wiped people both civilians and super-villains if they learned sensitive information particularly someone's secret ID. Heck in the issue where Major Disaster revealed Hal Jordan's and Barry Allen's secret ID to there respective Love Interests Jordan complains about how often he's had to mind-wipe sensitive information and Superman had no problems using an amnesia virus on his love interest Lana Lang in college even though it wiped an entire day's worth of her memories because she had JUST glimpsed his super-costume he had tucked into one of his college textbooks rather than try and find some other way (imagine losing an entire day of information in college).

What it means to be a good hero really hasn't changed, but the writers of the comics have backlashed against those aspects of heroes and so we ended up from the 90s on with horribly angsty stuff, thinking that somehow heroes should somehow never be seen being nice or decent or even just having a good laugh with friends because that's 'campy' (suffering from that 'true art is angsty' trope) rather than NORMAL behavior. Frankly what you see heroes going through today is so insanely beyond belief, with heroes going from one traumatic event to another, there shouldn't be any of them who doesn't need intensive therapy and they all should be in the kind of shape or far worse than Stark was in Iron Man 3 due to his PTSD from the battle in Avengers.

Okay so that is what pulp refers to, I had no idea.

As for what comics I was reading I'll start with spider-man. Pretty much anything in the clone saga and during the story arc that he lost his powers. I remember in that him immediately attacking his clone with no warning, him losing his cool repeatedly and savagely attacking villains. Then his clone (who turned out to be the original and not the clone and then apparently he was actually the clone....) attacking venom before he even found out what venom was doing, the original making a deal with venom that as long as venom stayed out of new york he had a free pass to do what he wanted without spidey coming after him.

For daredevil I can remember the time spider-man went to hells kitchen and was attacked by daredevil before he could even explain why he was there. I also remember reading an issue where daredevil beat a man unconscious because in addition to being a bad guy the villain had damaged a a few things in a gym including a picture that daredevil and his father were in together when he was a boy.

Now as for Captain America, thinking back it may have been on the 90's spiderman tv show and not a comic when I remember him going around attacking the red skulls thugs trying to find the red skull. So since I try not to count tv shows as canon, I'll concede that one.

Now I will say that most of my knowledge of comics come from reading them in the 90s as I learned to read in that decade. I read few comics from before them, but the ones I did read had a much more rigid set of guidelines on right and wrong (although I would have to say being okay with continually mind wiping the person you are supposed to love probably isn't the most moral thing in the world)

However, being a comic book reader of the 90s era pretty much exclusively, I learned the morality of a superhero from those comics. The ones where superman died, came back, used excessive force after his return in the form of guns as he destroyed the cyborg superman's minions, human and robot, and had a very unheroic super-boy clone, that only seemed to be concerned with getting girls. There was the zero hour event, marvel vs. dc, and the following amalgam comics thing. There was the superhero damage who blew up an entire city (Atlanta I think), killing everyone living there at the time, and was released into the custody of the martian man hunter.

Anyway the point of all that is with the morality taught to me by my comics back then, and now with the ultimate line of marvel, the earth one line of DC, and so on the morality of superheroes isn't the same as it once was. So when I say the modern good, that is what I am referring to.

[Nightmask]

It looks like you're overgeneralizing from fairly isolated events in those heroes' lives.

During the Clone Saga (which started okay but editorial mishandling to drag it out for more profit left it a hopeless mess) you've got Spider-man's very identity being threatened, the existence of his clone caused him much grief and he lashed out (in the animated series one if his alternate selves became so insane from his clone saga he sought to destroy the multiverse to end his pain).

By the same token the Daredevil incidents you mention were again extreme moments (few people react calmly when someone desecrates cherished childhood memories particularly of deceased parents) and not normal to the character.

Those events simply mark them as fallible humans, since heroes aren't perfect (although some do come close since contrary to what the cynics think some people ARE that good) and at extreme moments can act against their normal behaviors and lash out and do the wrong thing. That doesn't make them bad or somehow mean they should be considered as if that rare moment was somehow representative of who they are (an example being Hank Pym, he struck his wife ONCE while undergoing a psychotic break brought about in part due to exposure to mind-altering chemicals and from that point on one writer after the other has behaved as if he were a wife-beater when he'd have struck ANYONE at that moment whether it was his wife, Captain America, or Thor).

I think I've also already noted that from the 90s on you really can't call that the 'modern good', they really aren't heroes they're caricatures of heroes or deconstructions as they call them, tearing down the idea of what a hero is and replacing it with something tattered and false. Remember there are people who due to their cynicism seek to tear down anything good and replace it with their cynical notion of 'real', and there are just enough people infected with that cynicism that it keeps the market going (along with the idiots who'll buy comic X for their favorite hero no matter how awful it becomes) that they reject the entire larger part of the market who don't want that and want actual heroes again.

DC's Kingdom Come for example reflects on this, the public embracing those gritty anti-heroes only to find those 'heroes' didn't care who died in their fights and were more in it just to fight than due to any ideals or morality. Back after the original Crisis a storyarc with Superman before all that tarnishing also reflected some of that, when he was rendered amnesiac and was on Apocalypse and sold out the Lowlies in a slaughter to Darkseid's minions after being told he was Darkseid's son. When Orion ended up using his Mother Box to restore Superman's memories he explicitly removed the memories of what Superman had done because Superman as a hero shouldn't suffer such memories, those are for soldiers like himself to suffer from.

[Thom001]

It looks like you're overgeneralizing from fairly isolated events in those heroes' lives.

During the Clone Saga (which started okay but editorial mishandling to drag it out for more profit left it a hopeless mess) you've got Spider-man's very identity being threatened, the existence of his clone caused him much grief and he lashed out (in the animated series one if his alternate selves became so insane from his clone saga he sought to destroy the multiverse to end his pain).

By the same token the Daredevil incidents you mention were again extreme moments (few people react calmly when someone desecrates cherished childhood memories particularly of deceased parents) and not normal to the character.

Those events simply mark them as fallible humans, since heroes aren't perfect (although some do come close since contrary to what the cynics think some people ARE that good) and at extreme moments can act against their normal behaviors and lash out and do the wrong thing. That doesn't make them bad or somehow mean they should be considered as if that rare moment was somehow representative of who they are (an example being Hank Pym, he struck his wife ONCE while undergoing a psychotic break brought about in part due to exposure to mind-altering chemicals and from that point on one writer after the other has behaved as if he were a wife-beater when he'd have struck ANYONE at that moment whether it was his wife, Captain America, or Thor).

I think I've also already noted that from the 90s on you really can't call that the 'modern good', they really aren't heroes they're caricatures of heroes or deconstructions as they call them, tearing down the idea of what a hero is and replacing it with something tattered and false. Remember there are people who due to their cynicism seek to tear down anything good and replace it with their cynical notion of 'real', and there are just enough people infected with that cynicism that it keeps the market going (along with the idiots who'll buy comic X for their favorite hero no matter how awful it becomes) that they reject the entire larger part of the market who don't want that and want actual heroes again.

DC's Kingdom Come for example reflects on this, the public embracing those gritty anti-heroes only to find those 'heroes' didn't care who died in their fights and were more in it just to fight than due to any ideals or morality. Back after the original Crisis a storyarc with Superman before all that tarnishing also reflected some of that, when he was rendered amnesiac and was on Apocalypse and sold out the Lowlies in a slaughter to Darkseid's minions after being told he was Darkseid's son. When Orion ended up using his Mother Box to restore Superman's memories he explicitly removed the memories of what Superman had done because Superman as a hero shouldn't suffer such memories, those are for soldiers like himself to suffer from.

You asked for examples and I gave some. Also the 90's clone saga, the lost years, the clone being spider-man, the loss of spider-mans powers, etc. was at least three years of the spider-man series, encompassing all of the different spider-man titles at the time. It wasn't a one time thing.

Also you can't throw away or ignore an entire decade of comics because you don't like they way it was written.

Now I have not kept up with comics on a consistent basis starting around the time of omac or house of m. So if the comics currently being written have the majority of heroes acting the same kind of good as the classic silver age comics you referenced I will agree that modern good is the same as the classic I spoke of.

However, if the good characters written today are not the same as the classic silver age type of hero written in the past than no there is a difference between modern good and classic good as to what defines a hero.

[13eowulf]

Seriously? I am the only one who likes to play villains?

[flatline]

Seriously? I am the only one who likes to play villains?

I'm not really clear about the distinction between "villain" and "anti-hero", but I've probably had characters that count as both that I enjoyed playing.

--flatline

[13eowulf]

Seriously? I am the only one who likes to play villains?

I'm not really clear about the distinction between "villain" and "anti-hero", but I've probably had characters that count as both that I enjoyed playing.

--flatline

Anti-Heros are "Heroes" or characters who have a Heroic(ish) end-game, but act in a non-heroic manner, as well as lacking most common 'Heroic' characteristics, like Idealism.

The Punisher is an Anti-Hero because his goal is to punish the wicked or evil. Even if this causes him to sometimes work against conventional heroes.

Doctor Doom is a villain because he wants to enslave/rule the world (and take revenge on some), even if this causes him to sometimes work with conventional heroes. (He has helped heroes save the world from external threats, because ONLY he can be allowed to Conquer the world).

[flatline]

Seriously? I am the only one who likes to play villains?

I'm not really clear about the distinction between "villain" and "anti-hero", but I've probably had characters that count as both that I enjoyed playing.

--flatline

Anti-Heros are "Heroes" or characters who have a Heroic(ish) end-game, but act in a non-heroic manner, as well as lacking most common 'Heroic' characteristics, like Idealism.

The Punisher is an Anti-Hero because his goal is to punish the wicked or evil. Even if this causes him to sometimes work against conventional heroes.

Doctor Doom is a villain because he wants to enslave/rule the world (and take revenge on some), even if this causes him to sometimes work with conventional heroes. (He has helped heroes save the world from external threats, because ONLY he can be allowed to Conquer the world).

So is it accurate to say that an anti-hero is willing to do bad things to bad people while a villain is willing to do bad things to anybody, even innocents?

If that's an accurate assessment, then I don't think I've ever played an actual villain. My characters may have been criminals on the wrong side of the law that did terrible things to terrible people, but they never set out to do terrible things to anyone who hadn't somehow "earned" it (subjective, I know).

--flatline

[13eowulf]

Seriously? I am the only one who likes to play villains?

I'm not really clear about the distinction between "villain" and "anti-hero", but I've probably had characters that count as both that I enjoyed playing.

--flatline

Anti-Heros are "Heroes" or characters who have a Heroic(ish) end-game, but act in a non-heroic manner, as well as lacking most common 'Heroic' characteristics, like Idealism.

The Punisher is an Anti-Hero because his goal is to punish the wicked or evil. Even if this causes him to sometimes work against conventional heroes.

Doctor Doom is a villain because he wants to enslave/rule the world (and take revenge on some), even if this causes him to sometimes work with conventional heroes. (He has helped heroes save the world from external threats, because ONLY he can be allowed to Conquer the world).

So is it accurate to say that an anti-hero is willing to do bad things to bad people while a villain is willing to do bad things to anybody, even innocents?

If that's an accurate assessment, then I don't think I've ever played an actual villain. My characters may have been criminals on the wrong side of the law that did terrible things to terrible people, but they never set out to do terrible things to anyone who hadn't somehow "earned" it (subjective, I know).

--flatline

I would say a combination of what you said, and motivation. An anti-hero may be willing to 'rough-up', etc. an innocent to get information (clerk at a security firm to get codes for a bad guy's house, etc.).
A Villain on the other hand, may rescue and adopt 350 war-orphans and then build a school for them in a remote location away from the war.... so that then can be indoctrinated as his priests and personal loyal legion of terror, raised to adulthood to serve him in his bid for power and god-hood.... (not that I, you know, did that in a game or anything.... *cough*)

[taalismn]

Though a Fantasy character rather than a superhero, Michael Morcock's Elric is a classic Anti-Hero; he wants to destroy the Gods of Chaos for bringing misery to humanity, but in fighting them he uses a soul-drinking sword, alienates just about everybody he comes in contact with, destroys his own people and the woman he loves, and pretty much broods his way through life.

Warchmen is full of anti-heroes; in fact the anti-heroes are so convoluted and conflicted that some of them arguably become villains at some point or other.