Werewolf Superheroes

Zeev:

WolfMan86:

What is wrong with Werewolves having a purpose?

It's the WOD and your source of purpose should be questionable, not a divinely good entity.

Of course, the Forsaken have a purpose and a duty as well, but there's is far more tenuous and ill-defined.

WolfMan86:

It isn't about being a superhero, its about duty, responsibility, and sacrifice. 

The problem is that those aren't mutually exclusive.  The accusations of 'superhero' aren't avoided by pointing this out.

I'm talking about OWOD.  I don't see the Garou as superheroes.  They don't wear capes and they're not admired by society. 

The Garou aren't super heroes to me.

Blunt Vorpal:

WolfMan86:

It isn't about being a superhero, its about duty, responsibility, and sacrifice. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but duty, responsibility, and sacrifice are the traits of a hero, are they not?   It seems like you're saying that Werewolf is about heroes, but you're just not allowed to use the word "superhero."  

I mean, Iron Age heroes are pretty messed up individuals that are psychological driven to "fight crime."   They pretty much have to be unstable in order to wear capes and costumes instead of just joining the police force like regular folk - Batman, Punisher, etc.   Werewolf reminds me a lot of this kind of hero - they have a psychological / spiritual / instinctual drive to protect their territory. 

Batman was a victim of a tragedy and decided to fight crime.  Punisher was a victim of a crime and decided to kill bad guys.  The Garou weren't victims.  They were chosen to destroy the Wyrm and bring balance to the Triat.  They were chosen to watch ove the humans and make sure they stayed in line.

Both tasks they approached in a non-superhero manner: They culled humans and put fear into that has lasted for centuries.  They've killed other Garou for being too weak.  They've killed other Changing Breeds for not following their orders.

I don't see them as superheroes.  Heroes?  Yes.  But they carry out their mission in a brutal and direct fashion.  At least most of them do.  But I'm speaking on behalf of OWOD, I've yet to read NWOD in detail.

WolfMan86:

The Garou aren't super heroes to me.

Yes.  And most people that have played the game understand that.  However simply pointing it out doesn't really accomplish anything to (a) actually give a good reason why it isn't a valid alternate take on the same material or (b) acknowledge any of the various factors that lead people to seeing WtA as more superhero than not.

Zeev:

WolfMan86:

The Garou aren't super heroes to me.

Yes.  And most people that have played the game understand that.  However simply pointing it out doesn't really accomplish anything to (a) actually give a good reason why it isn't a valid alternate take on the same material or (b) acknowledge any of the various factors that lead people to seeing WtA as more superhero than not.

I'm not gonna type anything new.  I don't see the Garou from OWOD as superheroes.  They were given a job to do and their methods have been brutal and unyielding.  The only way they resemble super heroes is the Super Strength, Speed, Agility, Stamina, and Regeneration.  That's it.

claire_miller:

The question I still wonder what people think on the argument people use to compare werewolf to other lines: because of the werewolves sense of duty and protecting pack and territory, does this make it more of a "good guy" heroic game than the other lines?

Potentially. If that's one wants.

The great thing about idealism, though, is that if you present it as a more extreme version of itself, you're looking at fundamentalism. And that's not a bad place to be in a horror/drama game, because werewolves who follow the Oath of the Moon and their own codes of honor to the letter without any sort of moral flexibility are scary for the same reason the Pure are scary.

Idealism can lead you to a good and to a bad place. Both can be useful as far as the game is concerned.

WolfMan86:

The only way they resemble super heroes is the Super Strength, Speed, Agility, Stamina, and Regeneration.  That's it.

Except, as you've already acknowledged, they're heroes.  Being heroes, plus having extraordinary abilities... makes you a superhero.  At least in the basest definitions.  Even if you look at a more thorough exploration of the superhero idea, you find a lot of places where the Garou do, in fact, have traits commonly associated with superheroes.

Zeev:

WolfMan86:

The only way they resemble super heroes is the Super Strength, Speed, Agility, Stamina, and Regeneration.  That's it.

Except, as you've already acknowledged, they're heroes.  Being heroes, plus having extraordinary abilities... makes you a superhero.  At least in the basest definitions.  Even if you look at a more thorough exploration of the superhero idea, you find a lot of places where the Garou do, in fact, have traits commonly associated with superheroes.

But its their approach that sets them apart.  Superman won't kill.  Batman won't kill.  Captain America won't kill unless he has to.  Spider Man won't kill.  The Garou kill.  Are they doing it for the greater good? Yes.  But they blatantly take lives.  And if they can't control their rage and fall into the thrall of the wyrm, they'll become an agent for the wyrm.

And the garou are so flawed.  The Get of Fenris have raided caerns and killed Garou.  Shadow Lords use fellow Garou to further themselves.  Red Talons usually kill Homid born Garou, if any.  Black Furies have killed Male born Black Furies.

They aren't Superheroes to me.  They're more like Tragic Heroes..or something like that. 

I agree, the cartoonish nature of Apocalypse is a matter of personal interpretation, and it's possible to play them seriously and with an eye for honest portrayal.  But the thing about interpretation is that most interpretations are valid ways of looking at a subjective matter like a roleplaying game.  So, to play Devil's advocate here:

WolfMan86:

The Garou kill.

Except what do the Garou kill?  Sometimes they kill humans, but it's almost always a bad idea to do so, since that kind of thing leads to investigations, and investigations lead to exposure, and exposure threatens the Veil.  Plus you just know there's going to be some sandal-wearing, patchouli-reeking Child of Gaia standing next to you, lecturing you about how killing is bad and the humans will come around to your way of thinking if you're just patient and play some hackysack with them.

Whom did the Garou kill?  Evil spirits of corruption, which you might as well call demons, and mutant werewolves who used their magical power to worship corruption, which you may as well call devil-worshipers.  Not only is there nothing redeeming about banes or Black Spiral Dancers, there's also almost nothing about them to empathize with, so it's hard to even consider them people.  Killing them is an act as morally sterile as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles destroying Shredder's goofy, purple ninjabots; or at the extreme, as putting down rabid animals.

Masquerade was about morally gray areas, about deciding what sins are worth the price of your survival.  Ascension, at least in third edition, was about the morally gray areas of personal freedom (generally expressed as anarchy) versus social comfort (generally expressed as fascism).  But there wasn't much gray in the presentation of Apocalypse.  Whatever the nuances of your Tribe's/Camp's/sect's/pack's tactics, you were, at the end of the day, fighting to save the whales and stop global warming.  There's not much ambiguity about that.  The violence is Tarantino, but the morality is Disney.  It may not be fair to judge a game's seriousness by comparison to other games, but, well, tough.  Those things happen.

Also--and I know I've brought this up before, but bear with me--I was first exposed to Apocalypse in the second edition.  It opens and closes with comic books, and almost every male werewolf who has a piece of art in the book has the Wolverine haircut.  One picture is clearly of Hank McCoy doing one of his monkey-flips at the reader.  First impressions are important, and if you make the Garou look like X-Men, it'll be hard to not treat them as superheroes.  In the same sense, I couldn't take the Storytelling chapter of Hunter seriously when it said the game isn't about violence when something like two hundred out of two hundred and forty-six images were of people blowing holes in zombies.

WolfMan86:

The Get of Fenris have raided caerns and killed Garou.  Red Talons usually kill Homid born Garou, if any.  Black Furies have killed male Black Fury cubs.

I don't think anyone is arguing that all Garou, one hundred percent of them, have big red S-shields on their chests.  The Garou you're describing are presented as villainous exceptions to the rules, not the rules themselves.  Those Get?  They're Nazis.  Those Red Talons are wild dogs, and those Black Furies are misandrist sociopaths.  Their behavior is condoned neither by the Garou Nation nor by their individual Tribes.

WolfMan86:

Shadow Lords use fellow Garou to further themselves.

Personally, I don't see what's flawed or villainous about this.  Professor X uses the X-Men to advance himself and thus his cause of world harmony.  Captain America uses the Avengers to advance himself and thus Truth, Justice, And The American Way (tm).  So what?  A person needs personal power to effect change.  Only those Shadow Lords stupid enough to mistake power for an end rather than a means are doing anything questionable.

WolfMan86:

But its their approach that sets them apart.

Your definition of superhero is, apparently, a lot more narrow than most than.  "Not killing" cuts out a large number of characters considered superheroes.  In fact, every character you listed there has killed an enemy on purpose (or at least tried to since in comics death can be temporary) after being pushed far enough.  The Garou are simply pushed a lot harder due to their setting.

I can list a bunch of characters that are considered superheroes by most, that regularly kill their enemies.

WolfMan86:

And the garou are so flawed.

Flaws don't make you unheroic...  I mean... look at Batman.  He's mental.

WolfMan86:

They aren't Superheroes to me.  They're more like Tragic Heroes..or something like that. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Zeev:

WolfMan86:

But its their approach that sets them apart.

Your definition of superhero is, apparently, a lot more narrow than most than.  "Not killing" cuts out a large number of characters considered superheroes.  In fact, every character you listed there has killed an enemy on purpose (or at least tried to since in comics death can be temporary) after being pushed far enough.  The Garou are simply pushed a lot harder due to their setting.

I can list a bunch of characters that are considered superheroes by most, that regularly kill their enemies.

WolfMan86:

And the garou are so flawed.

Flaws don't make you unheroic...  I mean... look at Batman.  He's mental.

WolfMan86:

They aren't Superheroes to me.  They're more like Tragic Heroes..or something like that. 

The two are not mutually exclusive.

My definition of a Superhero is based off guys like Superman, Captain America, Spidey, and Green Lantern.  They never intentionally try to kill their enemies.  They subdue them.  And when the enemies push them to their breaking point, they'll broke down and take a life.  But that isn't often.

Garou killing monsters or humans is often.  If the Get of Fenris or Shadow Lords found a human who was slowly being possessed by a Bane and didn't know, do you think think they would take the time to figure out a non violent way of saving him.  I can't imagine them doing that. 

And I'm not saying flaws make them heroic, I'm saying flaws make them different from Super heroes.  Super heroes are admired and respected.  The Garou are naturally feared by humans and infamous in the Supernatural world.  A Superhero would approach a situation and try to resolve it peacefully and if he can't, knock the villain out and leave.  Garou show up and murder every enemy and then ask questions. 

Being a superhero is more than just powers.  Prototypical Superhero: Spider-Man

We have different views on super heroes.

JimB:

I agree, the cartoonish nature of Apocalypse is a matter of personal interpretation, and it's possible to play them seriously and with an eye for honest portrayal.  But the thing about interpretation is that most interpretations are valid ways of looking at a subjective matter like a roleplaying game.  So, to play Devil's advocate here:

WolfMan86:

The Garou kill.

Except what do the Garou kill?  Sometimes they kill humans, but it's almost always a bad idea to do so, since that kind of thing leads to investigations, and investigations lead to exposure, and exposure threatens the Veil.  Plus you just know there's going to be some sandal-wearing, patchouli-reeking Child of Gaia standing next to you, lecturing you about how killing is bad and the humans will come around to your way of thinking if you're just patient and play some hackysack with them.

Whom did the Garou kill?  Evil spirits of corruption, which you might as well call demons, and mutant werewolves who used their magical power to worship corruption, which you may as well call devil-worshipers.  Not only is there nothing redeeming about banes or Black Spiral Dancers, there's also almost nothing about them to empathize with, so it's hard to even consider them people.  Killing them is an act as morally sterile as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles destroying Shredder's goofy, purple ninjabots; or at the extreme, as putting down rabid animals.

Masquerade was about morally gray areas, about deciding what sins are worth the price of your survival.  Ascension, at least in third edition, was about the morally gray areas of personal freedom (generally expressed as anarchy) versus social comfort (generally expressed as fascism).  But there wasn't much gray in the presentation of Apocalypse.  Whatever the nuances of your Tribe's/Camp's/sect's/pack's tactics, you were, at the end of the day, fighting to save the whales and stop global warming.  There's not much ambiguity about that.  The violence is Tarantino, but the morality is Disney.  It may not be fair to judge a game's seriousness by comparison to other games, but, well, tough.  Those things happen.

Also--and I know I've brought this up before, but bear with me--I was first exposed to Apocalypse in the second edition.  It opens and closes with comic books, and almost every male werewolf who has a piece of art in the book has the Wolverine haircut.  One picture is clearly of Hank McCoy doing one of his monkey-flips at the reader.  First impressions are important, and if you make the Garou look like X-Men, it'll be hard to not treat them as superheroes.  In the same sense, I couldn't take the Storytelling chapter of Hunter seriously when it said the game isn't about violence when something like two hundred out of two hundred and forty-six images were of people blowing holes in zombies.

WolfMan86:

The Get of Fenris have raided caerns and killed Garou.  Red Talons usually kill Homid born Garou, if any.  Black Furies have killed male Black Fury cubs.

I don't think anyone is arguing that all Garou, one hundred percent of them, have big red S-shields on their chests.  The Garou you're describing are presented as villainous exceptions to the rules, not the rules themselves.  Those Get?  They're Nazis.  Those Red Talons are wild dogs, and those Black Furies are misandrist sociopaths.  Their behavior is condoned neither by the Garou Nation nor by their individual Tribes.

WolfMan86:

Shadow Lords use fellow Garou to further themselves.

Personally, I don't see what's flawed or villainous about this.  Professor X uses the X-Men to advance himself and thus his cause of world harmony.  Captain America uses the Avengers to advance himself and thus Truth, Justice, And The American Way (tm).  So what?  A person needs personal power to effect change.  Only those Shadow Lords stupid enough to mistake power for an end rather than a means are doing anything questionable.

And I like the morality in Werewolf.  In VtM and MtA, you can sit on your ass, power up, and kill time until Jyhad comes.  The Garou were given a mission.  And they've spent all their lives trying to accomplish that mission.  Methods vary, but they have a job to do. 

Garou are killing nasty enemies, but killing is still a heinous act.  They have to do the dirty work for Gaia.  The number of Garou dwindles every year, more Fomori and Dancers show up yearly, Humans destroy the environment more often, and the other Changing Breeds hate the Garou for the War of Rage.  There is so much shit stacked up against the Garou and they're expected to stay in control of their Rage.  You can compare the stories of WtA, VtM, MtA all you want.  WtA is the better of the three. 

And I first read the 1998 version of WtA, so I never read the core book you read.

Professor X is leading the X-men.  Teaching them and giving them shelter.  He's not doing it to gain power, he does it to keep the world safe and make the world see that not all Mutants are bad.  Captain America is trying to keep the world safe.  The best way to do it is by leading the Avengers.  He looks like an American Flag, but he's not a drone for America.

WolfMan86:

My definition of a Superhero is based off guys like Superman, Captain America, Spidey, and Green Lantern.  They never intentionally try to kill their enemies.

Yes, they do.  Superman has intentionally killed at least four people I know of; he used kryptonite to kill General Zod and his cronies, and he killed Doomsday.  Depending on which Green Lantern you're talking about, he's intentionally killed others, including his brothers in arms.  I'm told Captain America has killed people intentionally because he's a soldier, though I don't know any personal examples.  Spider-Man I can't speak to.

WolfMan86:

If the Get of Fenris or Shadow Lords found a human who was slowly being possessed by a Bane and didn't know, do you think think they would take the time to figure out a non violent way of saving him.

I can't answer this kind of hypothetical question.  It depends on the Garou in question.

WolfMan86:

Super heroes are admired and respected.

Like Spider-Man, who has a constant media crusade turning people against him?  Like the X-Men, who are never anything less than hated?  Like Captain America, who was a national fugitive for denying the hero registration whatsit?

WolfMan86:

The Garou are naturally feared by humans and infamous in the Supernatural world.

So are whole scores of superheroes.

WolfMan86:

There is so much shit stacked up against the Garou and they're expected to stay in control of their Rage.  You can compare the stories of WtA, VtM, MtA all you want.  WtA is the better of the three.

Nothing here has anything to do with whether Garou are superheroes, but since you bring it up:

There is so much shit stacked up against vampires and they're expected to stay in control of their own destinies despite the machinations of creatures who are only slightly younger than homo Sapiens as a species.  There is so much shit stacked up against the magi and they're expected to try to find enlightenment despite living in a universe that abhors their enlightenment and punishes them for seeking it.

The amount of resistance against a supernatural creature does not make stories about them better than others, and it's not even demonstrable that the werewolves face more resistance than anyone else.

WolfMan86:

Professor X is leading the X-men.  Teaching them and giving them shelter.  He's not doing it to gain power, he does it to keep the world safe and make the world see that not all Mutants are bad.

Yet somehow, he gets the bajillions of dollars it takes to build interstellar spacecraft, holodeck combat programs, armored exoskeletons that run on telepathy to help him walk, and the Christ knows what else shit he has.  Yes, he does amass personal power, because you can't tell me all that money comes from jars put on supermarket counters with hand-lettered signs that say "Donate today for a better tomorrow for mutants!"

WolfMan86:

Captain America is trying to keep the world safe.  The best way to do it is by leading the Avengers.  He looks like an American Flag, but he's not a drone for America.

But he needs his position to fight effectively.  When he rebelled, he was kicked out of the Avengers and became an outlaw.  How much of his efforts were wasted fighting other superheroes when he could have been fighting, I don't know, Dr. Doom?

Personal power is part and parcel of effecting change in the world.  You can rail all you want against manipulating others, but everyone does it with every look and every word they speak.

WolfMan86:

My definition of a Superhero

See, this is really the problem.  It isn't really fair to just go by one person's chosen definition of a word.  If you can't acknowledge how the term is used in a more general sense by our culture as a whole, then you're not really saying anything with weight behind it.

Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity involved in applying labels like this, but simply falling back on, "I don't define superhero like that," doesn't get anybody anywhere in regards to the topic.

The people that see WtA as a superhero-ish game are going to do so, because they see a general cultural consensus that says antihero and superhero can be the same thing, giving us characters like Wolverine and Spawn.

JimB:

WolfMan86:

My definition of a Superhero is based off guys like Superman, Captain America, Spidey, and Green Lantern.  They never intentionally try to kill their enemies.

Yes, they do.  Superman has intentionally killed at least four people I know of; he used kryptonite to kill General Zod and his cronies, and he killed Doomsday.  Depending on which Green Lantern you're talking about, he's intentionally killed others, including his brothers in arms.  I'm told Captain America has killed people intentionally because he's a soldier, though I don't know any personal examples.  Spider-Man I can't speak to.

WolfMan86:

If the Get of Fenris or Shadow Lords found a human who was slowly being possessed by a Bane and didn't know, do you think think they would take the time to figure out a non violent way of saving him.

I can't answer this kind of hypothetical question.  It depends on the Garou in question.

WolfMan86:

Super heroes are admired and respected.

Like Spider-Man, who has a constant media crusade turning people against him?  Like the X-Men, who are never anything less than hated?  Like Captain America, who was a national fugitive for denying the hero registration whatsit?

WolfMan86:

The Garou are naturally feared by humans and infamous in the Supernatural world.

So are whole scores of superheroes.

WolfMan86:

There is so much shit stacked up against the Garou and they're expected to stay in control of their Rage.  You can compare the stories of WtA, VtM, MtA all you want.  WtA is the better of the three.

Nothing here has anything to do with whether Garou are superheroes, but since you bring it up:

There is so much shit stacked up against vampires and they're expected to stay in control of their own destinies despite the machinations of creatures who are only slightly younger than homo Sapiens as a species.  There is so much shit stacked up against the magi and they're expected to try to find enlightenment despite living in a universe that abhors their enlightenment and punishes them for seeking it.

The amount of resistance against a supernatural creature does not make stories about them better than others, and it's not even demonstrable that the werewolves face more resistance than anyone else.

WolfMan86:

Professor X is leading the X-men.  Teaching them and giving them shelter.  He's not doing it to gain power, he does it to keep the world safe and make the world see that not all Mutants are bad.

Yet somehow, he gets the bajillions of dollars it takes to build interstellar spacecraft, holodeck combat programs, armored exoskeletons that run on telepathy to help him walk, and the Christ knows what else shit he has.  Yes, he does amass personal power, because you can't tell me all that money comes from jars put on supermarket counters with hand-lettered signs that say "Donate today for a better tomorrow for mutants!"

WolfMan86:

Captain America is trying to keep the world safe.  The best way to do it is by leading the Avengers.  He looks like an American Flag, but he's not a drone for America.

But he needs his position to fight effectively.  When he rebelled, he was kicked out of the Avengers and became an outlaw.  How much of his efforts were wasted fighting other superheroes when he could have been fighting, I don't know, Dr. Doom?

Personal power is part and parcel of effecting change in the world.  You can rail all you want against manipulating others, but everyone does it with every look and every word they speak.

Killing is never Superman's first option.  Same goes for Captain America and Green Lantern.  They've only tried killing people when they've been pushed too far or there is no choice(like Captain America being a soldier in the 40's.

Spider Man has fans that admire him.  I'll give you the X-men one.  Captain America was national fugitive because he was standing against the registration act.  He knew it wasn't right and fought against it.  Before and after that event, people admire Captain America.  Superman is loved in his universe.  Fantastic Four are celebrities in New York.  The Garou's only fans are other Garou. 

Vampires simply hang out in their haven, collect more money, ghoul a rich person, and repeat the process for centuries.  You have a few Sabbat encounters, but I see nothing tough about their struggle.  Controlling the beast within is difficult, but I say the Garou's struggles are tougher.

Prof.X needs the money to keep Cerebro up to date, to better train his X-men, and give them the best equipment he can buy.  Prof.X is putting the money to good use. 

Iron Man and his goons were coming after Captain America and his people.  He opposed the registration act, Iron Man responded by trying to capture Cap, and Cap responded by fighting back.  Cap and other heroes fought for their beliefs.  And this one of the few time Cap fought another superhero.   Usually, he would be leading the Avengers and kicking Doom's ass.

Zeev:

WolfMan86:

My definition of a Superhero

See, this is really the problem.  It isn't really fair to just go by one person's chosen definition of a word.  If you can't acknowledge how the term is used in a more general sense by our culture as a whole, then you're not really saying anything with weight behind it.

Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity involved in applying labels like this, but simply falling back on, "I don't define superhero like that," doesn't get anybody anywhere in regards to the topic.

The people that see WtA as a superhero-ish game are going to do so, because they see a general cultural consensus that says antihero and superhero can be the same thing, giving us characters like Wolverine and Spawn.

With regards to the topic, I gave my opinion.  And my opinion is that I don't see the Garou in WtA as superheroes.