Vigilante Rule 2008

Good Morning all;
Back in the day when I was still shad0hawke I put together a vigilante rule for Lady arachne's website that is featured here.

Well, I went back updated it last year, and figured I'd post it here as well:

(Originally Developed for Lady Arachne’s MSH Website, 1995)

The darker side of the super hero genre is the anti-hero or vigilante. Such characters as The Punisher tm, Ghost Rider tm, Venom tm, and others all fall on the “gray” side of heroics, where the use of lethal force is not only an option, but a regular occurrence. Players seek new ways to bring versions of their favorite characters into play, and often times find themselves suddenly facing the “Killing=total loss of Karma” rule.

So how do you create the anti-hero hero?

The Vigilante Rule:

Game Benefits:

Karma Immunity: Vigilante characters do not lose Karma for killing opponents. The Vigilante actually can gain karma by not killing victims at the Judge’s discretion as they would through getting a RP award of +5 points. The real benefit however is the ability not to lose karma through obvious villainous actions.

Intimidation: The mention of a Vigilante’s name can send even the hardened criminal heart into a terrified flutter. As such, when faced with normal criminals, the Vigilante can force an intimidation check versus the criminal’s PSYCHE at good (10) rank.

Game Drawbacks:
Negative Popularity: once a character becomes a vigilante, their popularity immediately goes down by +10, reflecting the public outrage at the Vigilante’s negative actions. A character also begins to lose popularity by their actions, and can actually begin to get negative popularity, a maximum of -20. In addition, a Vigilante cannot have a popularity above 10, as a Vigilante cannot easily find those who embrace their particular philosophy.

No Law Enforcement Contacts: All contacts that are related to law enforcement or other appropriate agencies immediately dry up, reflecting the new legal situation that the vigilante finds themselves in. Most law enforcement agencies view vigilante characters as no better than the criminals they hunt, and in some cases, take a particular interest in their case.

Reforming the Vigilante:

As with most developing storylines, the vigilante may at some point decide to retire or rethink the more brutal methods, seeking to take on a new approach to crime-fighting. If this is the case, then vigilante has their work cut out for themselves. It is not easy to prove a vigilante has not “reformed”, nor should it be.

The cost to absolving a Vigilante is 1000 karma, and once reformed, the character cannot take up the role of judge, jury, and executioner again. If a reformed vigilante does indeed seek to return to old methods, then the penalty doubles in regards to popularity, and are in danger of losing contacts as many people feel betrayed by the former Vigilante.

Why do law enforcement contacts automatically dry up? I think there are plenty of canon references to the Punisher being able to maintain a legal contact here and there. Now i can understand giving them a limitation of a criminal record, being wanted by the local/state/feneral authorities, being on the FBI most wanted list, etc. But even in the comics they portray cops as pretty much supporting the Punisher's actions for doing what they can't to the scum who can buy the system. Maybe it should make all law enforcement contacts treated as neutral, due to the strain the vigilante's record causes.

I also think that absolutely no karma loss for killing doesn't work. Even vigilante's should pay the price that killing exacts on their inner self. Maybe make it a 25 karma penalty for killing, instead of a full karma loss, and maybe make them immune to legal infractions [actions that are considered misdemeanors and felonies]. Also, Vigilantes should gain karma more slowly for heroic actions, since they already get their karma penalties at a discount, so things stay more balanced.

The intimidation check should be based on a popularity feat roll. Maybe it can only work really if the vigilante has negative popularity [a reputation for taking the fight to criminals no holds barred] and they make a popularity feat comparing the vigilante's negative pop vs. the criminal's psyche.

Paying karma to change one's ethics doesn't exactly make sense to me either. I mean, if I find i've done something wrong, do i have to invest all of the karma I've earned to do so? no, i just start trying to lead my life differently. I would say that a Vigilante is considered 'reformed' when he can get his popularity back into the positive numbers. once that happens, they suffer the same karma penalties as regular heroes. If the vigilante backslides, then i'd double their karma penalties because they're betraying even their own will to try and do things a better way.

ProfilesProfiles CreationCreation House_RulesHouse_Rules Other_StuffOther_Stuff TechnologyTechnology Email_MeEmail_Me ForumForum Web_LinksWeb_Links

Welcome, jacknemo Log Out Control Center Private Messages
Home > Discussion > Topic

Advanced
Re: Vigilante Rule 2008
Previous Message Next Message
Forum List Message List New Topic Print View
capocastillo [ PM ]
March 04, 2008 11:39AM Registered: 2 years ago
Posts: 1,732

--Why do law enforcement contacts automatically dry up? I think there are plenty of canon references to the Punisher being able to maintain a legal contact here and there. Now i can understand giving them a limitation of a criminal record, being wanted by the local/state/feneral authorities, being on the FBI most wanted list, etc. But even in the comics they portray cops as pretty much supporting the Punisher's actions for doing what they can't to the scum who can buy the system. Maybe it should make all law enforcement contacts treated as neutral, due to the strain the vigilante's record causes.--

At the same time, there was a Punisher Taskforce, and while support was there for the Punisher, the benefits of a contact were very limited. I think perhaps another way to address this would be to state that the vigilante loses 'official' support/contacts within law enforcement, such as agencies and the like, but perhaps could foster and maintain existing contacts.

--I also think that absolutely no karma loss for killing doesn't work. Even vigilante's should pay the price that killing exacts on their inner self. Maybe make it a 25 karma penalty for killing, instead of a full karma loss, and maybe make them immune to legal infractions [actions that are considered misdemeanors and felonies]. Also, Vigilantes should gain karma more slowly for heroic actions, since they already get their karma penalties at a discount, so things stay more balanced.--

A very interesting idea, but the fact is, the Punisher as an example, or perhaps someone like Ghost Rider have no reservations on the use of lethal force. The vigilante rule isn't geared towards the casual vigilante, but vigilantes like Solo and the Punisher, like the character in fiction like Remo Williams and even James Bond. The trade-off for not losing karma in killing is that effectively, they're perceived by the public, as the Punisher is often seen, as a criminal.


--The intimidation check should be based on a popularity feat roll. Maybe it can only work really if the vigilante has negative popularity [a reputation for taking the fight to criminals no holds barred] and they make a popularity feat comparing the vigilante's negative pop vs. the criminal's psyche.--

Again, a good take, I think however that the idea is that if you say 'Daredevil', the issue is most people will know him as the dude in the red suit, and criminals in New York know him as being a hardnosed vigilante.

If you say 'Punisher', as the comics have shown, or 'Scourge', criminals react very differently, sweating bullets to get out of the area, a real effect of fear. The issue is popularity, which I have always felt is not exactly a good thing to register the impact of knowledge of a hero. To me Popularity is the perception of the hero, not the base reaction of how the public knows about them. I think that for the purposes of intimidation, the real key would be a psyche FEAT in order to contain their reactions.



--Paying karma to change one's ethics doesn't exactly make sense to me either. I mean, if I find i've done something wrong, do i have to invest all of the karma I've earned to do so? no, i just start trying to lead my life differently. I would say that a Vigilante is considered 'reformed' when he can get his popularity back into the positive numbers. once that happens, they suffer the same karma penalties as regular heroes. If the vigilante backslides, then i'd double their karma penalties because they're betraying even their own will to try and do things a better way.--

Again, I'm not suggesting that a simple mechanic can absolve one of their crimes, far from it. I think it is a necessity that there must be an RP component to turn over a new leaf, and an additional cost to purchase absolution. What I'm suggesting is that to even consider such, it will take a real reason and an additional cost, not a blank karma payment to suddenly be a 'good guy' again.

Very interesting points!

Of course this is just differing takes on how one can address the 'anti-hero'. i personally have my own house rules to deal with this kind of character concept that i'm pretty much happy with. however, using your framework, there are two things I'd like to address;

Karma Loss for vigilantes -
There are certainly vigilantes that really don't give a damn about what they do to criminals, like the Punisher. However, I think that the Punisher and Wolverine, and people like them, are willing to take the 'karma hit' for their actions. In the comics they always take a 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality, accepting that what they do has turned them into something less than human, and they don't want others walking their path. The Punisher especially has stated many times that his war, is meant for him and him alone, and he does not want for others to follow his path.

So i think intrinsicly, vigilantes accept the psychological consequences of their actions, but they also do acknowledge that there are indeed consequences. Which is why I think imposing a 25 karma penalty for killing isn't the worst thing in the world. it relects that morally gray attitude, but it does make a distinction between morally gray, and morally black. Of course killing innocents is a no no in anyone except a psycho's book, so that should still incur full penalty regardless of a 'vigilante' disposition. The Punisher does carefully plan his hits so that only the scum are killed. killing the cleaning lady who doesn't speak english who works buck twenty five an hour waxing a drug lord's banister isn't ok with Frank Castle.

That said, the infraction here and there, taking a heist's score so you can fund your one man war on crime is a 0 karma penalty, for example. Or breaking and entering into some legal front opperations to get the dirt on your mark ain't so big of a deal.

Negative popularity/Intimidation -
You make a strong point with the Daredevil example. However, keep in mind, that Daredevil may opperate at a vigilante level, but does not use vigilante methods. he'll beat the crap out of a criminal, but he absolutely won't kill, at least on purpose. And this is a dude who's been trained as a ninja of all things. He very much plays by the rules of the good guys, even more so than someone like Batman does.

I do feel that criminals should make a psyche check to resist intimidation, but really, what does a vigilante's psyche have to do with intimidation? it isn't the vigilante exerting his will on the criminal, it's wearing that giant skull on his chest, it's the stories the criminal has heard about jimmy the nose, and Lefty Two-Guns becoming human hamburger during the H shipment two months ago when the Punisher got the drop on them. And characters like Castle have siginifcant negative popularity scores. Remember with negative pop, you simply treat all people across the spectrum as pretty much a neutral contact, even your own contacts. So I think a contested roll between the vigilante's negative popularity vs. the Criminal's Psyche is as realistic an interpretation of intimidation you really can get.

Cap, I agree the definition of anti-hero is the focal point, and you've brought out some good points. I just want to address one more, then then I'm done, I swear :-)
I do feel that criminals should make a psyche check to resist intimidation, but really, what does a vigilante's psyche have to do with intimidation? it isn't the vigilante exerting his will on the criminal, it's wearing that giant skull on his chest, it's the stories the criminal has heard about jimmy the nose, and Lefty Two-Guns becoming human hamburger during the H shipment two months ago when the Punisher got the drop on them. And characters like Castle have siginifcant negative popularity scores. Remember with negative pop, you simply treat all people across the spectrum as pretty much a neutral contact, even your own contacts. So I think a contested roll between the vigilante's negative popularity vs. the Criminal's Psyche is as realistic an interpretation of intimidation you really can get.

I would agree, but I think that the issue isn't the vigilante' psyche, it's the criminal's, as to determine their reaction to the vigilante rather than the vigilante's previous reputation, which I agree is esssentially set by their popularity. I think that the popularity and reputation of the vigilante is marked by their activities, but what I'm discussing is simply the on the fly reaction, which defaults in my mind to a simple opposition Psyche FEAT.

I do like the idea of a contest roll, as it feeds the psyche FEAT with the reputation and the effects of facing someone who for whatever reason has cultivated a 'shoot first, ask questions later' approach, or worse.

'Course, I just updated work I did nearly twelve years, so things have changed both in that approach in what has worked in games I've run since then. Since then, we've created a 'path' system for vigilantes, to further define the type of vigilante (From the costumed vigilante to the punisher style).

I'll post that here at some point.

Unfortunately intimidation is poorly covered in the rules if at all, since intimidation is as much a nature of body posture and attitude as it is reputation. On many occasion you'll find a story where someone's in a setting where he's unknown and yet more than able to pull off the same measure of intimidation because he projects that aura of 'mess with me and you won't see another day' that exists outside of reputation.

"A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it."

-- Peter David

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Nightmask Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Paragon Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Complete list of my characters various forum URLs, over 30 to enjoy!

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Godiva Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Seraphim Character Sheet

[www.furaffinity.net] Art by Marvel Comic's artist Rusty Haller!

[www.furaffinity.net] Artist/writer/Creator of The Extinctioners Independent super-hero comic!

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Sappho Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Cornucopia Character Sheet

[www.classicmarvel.com] - Nightmares of Futures Past Ongoing Story

[www.classicmarvel.com] - There is no such thing as too powerful Forum Thread

I think that a contested Popularity [Vigilante] vs. Psyche [Criminal] Roll would still work in these situations. Just give the Vigilante a negative column shift to represent him being less well known than he would be in his typical base of operations.

Hey, I'm still knocking around the Marvel world, just under a different name, now.
Nice to see that this is still usable, and now updated. :)

No time to run a website anymore, though... :P

Cheers,

Niniri

(formerly known as Lady Arakne)