Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things?

[Enforcer84]

Let's take a look at this from the other perspective.

 

How do our resident GM's handle PC killing and not?

I've seen at least one GM who doesn't think CvK is playable, and a few who disagree.

 

For a Supers Genre game, how do you handle lethality? Are mass murderers given long careers because you enjoy the character? Are players held responsible for their actions but never rewarded for playing their CvK well? Do you reward players for reigning in the body count?

 

I haven't run games much but to tell the truth I never had a Joker like villain. I had a few murderers who when captured disappeared while I made a new villain.

 

I tried to keep the idea of "Reoccurring Villain" without falling into "Players accomplish squat but the status quo."

 

Not always successfully This is why I play more than GM.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Some level of CvK is assumed. At the very least, you get the zero point 'Reluctance to Kill'; I don't allow Casual Killer, Prefers to Kill, or anything on that side of the spectrum for PCs.

 

I generally don't use mass murderers as villains; I tend not to find them very interesting. If a villain gets captured, typically you don't see them again for a long time. If they escape, you might, but I generally don't fart around with escape scenarios or 'insanity defense' shenanigans. Your villainy butt probably goes to Stronghold, see you in a few years if then. Now, I will be honest and say I'm thinking about, sometime, running Reality Storm and having the villains crack Stronghold wide open ... but that's slightly different from revolving door prisons.

 

Yeah, in my game world, the justice system generally works ... villains rarely if ever get off on technicalities unless the PCs are, for whatever reason, acting questionably in how they go about stuff.

[Tom]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Even before 6e (which resulted in the need for fewer Complications), I was moving away from CvKs unless something about the character's b/g really demanded its inclusion. It was getting too difficult to decide just what exactly it meant for one (ie: the PC won't kill, or the PC gets unhinged if anyone tries to kill).

 

The more important problem is it forces the GM to create situations where the PC(s) killing someone is practically necessary.

 

If a Complication doesn't complicate the PCs life, it isn't a complication. If the GM never puts the player in the situation of contemplating lethal force, then it isn't worth any points to have a CvK.

 

In part, I'm just not interested in seeing how convoluted Batman's reasoning can get to justify letting the Joker live or how many people a character will let die just to keep the villain's 'literal' blood off his own lily-white hands.

[Gary Miles]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Let's take a look at this from the other perspective.

 

How do our resident GM's handle PC killing and not?

I've seen at least one GM who doesn't think CvK is playable, and a few who disagree.

 

For a Supers Genre game, how do you handle lethality? Are mass murderers given long careers because you enjoy the character? Are players held responsible for their actions but never rewarded for playing their CvK well? Do you reward players for reigning in the body count?

 

I haven't run games much but to tell the truth I never had a Joker like villain. I had a few murderers who when captured disappeared while I made a new villain.

 

I tried to keep the idea of "Reoccurring Villain" without falling into "Players accomplish squat but the status quo."

 

Not always successfully This is why I play more than GM.

 

CVK is very playable, even at Very Common and Total. My PC speedster, BlueStreak, who has a VC/T CVK has been know to speed even injured villains off the battlefield to the hospital, then rejoin the fight.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I think Alien Invasions are situations that allow characters to ignore or at least suppress the severity of their CvK. See the both the first and last episodes of the Justice League Animated series for examples of this.

[hfergus]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I encourage my players to avoid The most severe CVK unless the game is silver age in tone - which mine aren't. They want to do it, fine. I warn them that someday, they will probably regret it. Either the bad guy may go too far, they have to kill or a team member will have to kill. If they find that ok - or even good role-playing, so be it. I will use it eventually (I tell everyone that I will use your complication eventually), but will not rub it in.

[Epiphanis]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I am a vocal defender of the use of CvK and have required it (or similar mechanics) in several games I have run, in and out of Hero System.

 

In two games I announced that any intentional killing of a human would result in the immediate conversion of the killing character to NPC status, independent of whether the character had CvK or not. Thus, the CvK limitation mechanic is not necessarily mandatory but instead represents a free limitation that saves you points, since every PC is treated as having CvK anyway. Its just a campaign parameter that bypasses the optional mechanic of CvK entirely. Thus, if you really really want to have your character kill, I will let you -- exactly one time, after which you get the option of a rolling up a new character at a lower point level than the other players, or leaving the campaign entirely. And the former PC becomes mine as an NPC, and I do whatever I want with him. Maybe he dies tragically (karmic backlash?), maybe he's convicted of murder and gets sent to prison, maybe he becomes a villain, or maybe nothing happens to him at all, depending on what I think is appropriate for story purposes and my own sensibilities. I have come to refer to this as the "Back in Black" solution, since I based the idea off the Spider-Man storyline where -- SPOILER -- Peter Parker has some strong motivation to kill Kingpin's fat keester in violation of his own CvK. His solution? He announces his intention to renounce being Spider Man (presumably forever) and kill the fat bastitch as plain old Peter Parker, nonhero (he didn't follow through, however). This was also the solution Harry Callahan reached in the first Dirty Harry movie, where he murdered the villain in cold blood and finished the movie by throwing his badge in a river. Sort of undercut by all the sequels in which he retained his Detective status regardless, but it would have been an appropriate ending.

 

Now, all that having been said, I have run 'antihero' games with absolutely no CvK or equivalent requirement at all, and I probably wiill again. I love stuff like Thunderbolts and Suicide Squad. But I also love stuff like the Justice League and Spider Man, in which the heroes really are held to a higher standard of behavior than the villains they fight.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Even before 6e (which resulted in the need for fewer Complications)' date=' I was moving away from CvKs unless something about the character's b/g really demanded its inclusion. It was getting too difficult to decide just what exactly it meant for one (ie: the PC won't kill, or the PC gets unhinged if [u']anyone[/u] tries to kill).

 

The more important problem is it forces the GM to create situations where the PC(s) killing someone is practically necessary.

 

If a Complication doesn't complicate the PCs life, it isn't a complication. If the GM never puts the player in the situation of contemplating lethal force, then it isn't worth any points to have a CvK.

 

In part, I'm just not interested in seeing how convoluted Batman's reasoning can get to justify letting the Joker live or how many people a character will let die just to keep the villain's 'literal' blood off his own lily-white hands.

 

This is similiar to my feelings. CvK doesn't seem like much of a disadvantage in most Superheroic games. The scenario has to be closed to rigged for it to be -required- to kill someone or use lethal force or be a disadvantage. Accidentally killing someone, even someone somewhat below par guideline wise is rare (and using those types of opponents is considered blindsiding the players by some people). I've rolled around dropping it but I mainly allow it out of a sense of tradition.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

This is similiar to my feelings. CvK doesn't seem like much of a disadvantage in most Superheroic games. The scenario has to be closed to rigged for it to be -required- to kill someone or use lethal force or be a disadvantage. Accidentally killing someone' date=' even someone somewhat below par guideline wise is rare (and using those types of opponents is considered blindsiding the players by some people). I've rolled around dropping it but I mainly allow it out of a sense of tradition.[/quote']

 

 

Not sure about this. I mean, look at Spiderman, obviously has a code vs killing. Half his foes are humans - the limitation comes into play (or at least should) all the time. How many fights have gone on longer than they might otherwise ...including loses for Pete...because he won't level the strength that can rend steel against clowns like the Vulture, Kingpin, or the Enforcers?

 

Now Champions does give you some wiggle room. Assuming Pete has a 50 STR (like I do) how much does he have to pull to go toe to toe with Adrian Toomes, the Vulture? Probably not as much.

 

The limitation also dictates Pete's choice of weaponry - he would never even consider carrying a blade or similar weapons (IMO)

 

To me that kind of stuff is taken in consideration with the limitation. Power selection, tactics, actions during combat.

Not ONLY is it...this guy needs to die but I can't...situations. That's not the ONLY use for it.

 

Superman's CvK has been discussed - Depending on the build you could say that he is faced with it every time he foils a bank robbery.

[Greywind]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Not really, since in a supers campaign the level of power, on average, is enough to kill normals whether or not the attack itself is a killing attack. It isn't just about whether or not a player will kill a villain, but how the character goes about finding out exactly what level of power is acceptable to throw against this villain.

 

How many times have we seen the "why doesn't Batman just kill the Joker and get it over with" debates? Batman stands by his CvK even though his life and most of Gotham's would be a lot easier if the Joker were dead?

 

I have had PCs battle each other due to conflict of CvK. I had one NPC lecture a PC about his penchant for lethal attacks. Later on I had the same PC have to deal with the same NPC going overboard with his attacks as the CvK started breaking down towards a couple of other characters. It was all about role-playing and choices.

 

I've heard the "he's not going to let you kill his villain" comments. Shave off the serial numbers and create a "new" version of the villain with a different personality/schtick. There are ways to use and justify the disad intelligently.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

True. And like those who disagree with me have said, there's a bit more inherent reluctance in a Superhero game, earlier editions of Champions might have required a few redundant Disads to make 150 pts that 6e doesn't.

 

I think a Fantasy Hero or Dark Champions character with Code vs Killing would be at a far greater disadvantage than a costumed crime fighter in a world of superheroes.

 

Another thing to consider of course, is the GM/Player joint interpretation of each Disadvantage/Complication, on a character sheet you have limited information and ideally the GM and Player have hashed out what it means. Even guys whom I would say have a Code vs Killing in the source material have done so - Comics Code driven or not.

 

There was a discussion in either one of the books or here on the boards where someone with a 20pt Total CvK came to the "Kill this entity or the universe dies" situation and the character did it without hesitation - and was haunted by it for much of the rest of his career, constantly wondering if he could have found some other way - or if he'd been wrong the entire time. Since these are just role playing aids and the character can evolve/change...I never saw this as a cop out or "wrong."

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Not sure about this. I mean, look at Spiderman, obviously has a code vs killing. Half his foes are humans - the limitation comes into play (or at least should) all the time. How many fights have gone on longer than they might otherwise ...including loses for Pete...because he won't level the strength that can rend steel against clowns like the Vulture, Kingpin, or the Enforcers?

 

Now Champions does give you some wiggle room. Assuming Pete has a 50 STR (like I do) how much does he have to pull to go toe to toe with Adrian Toomes, the Vulture? Probably not as much.

 

The limitation also dictates Pete's choice of weaponry - he would never even consider carrying a blade or similar weapons (IMO)

 

To me that kind of stuff is taken in consideration with the limitation. Power selection, tactics, actions during combat.

Not ONLY is it...this guy needs to die but I can't...situations. That's not the ONLY use for it.

 

Superman's CvK has been discussed - Depending on the build you could say that he is faced with it every time he foils a bank robbery.

 

 

I know that's not the only use. But while CvK works in stories but I haven't found it to be a significant hinderance in play without loading the situation. Pretty much the only time it has been significant drawback, IMO, has been situations where the PC could/should kill someone but can't because of their CvK.

 

Players tend to assume that opponents are going to be scaled appropriately to the campaign, most villains are designed to the standards so its very difficult to actually harm (do Body) unintentially or at least lethal levels. If you don't want to get a Killing Attack then don't. There's really no reason for you to be rewarded for it, IMO. In 6th KAs are a bit neutered anyway. Even then you can use a slighty lower number of dice in an attack without declaring your Pulling your Punch (with a -OCV) if someone seems fragile. The amount of fiddling to get things "just right" or setting up situations really doesn't seem worth it most of the time. Let the players decided (or the dice) if someone is killed or not and role play the repercussions of either choice feels like less to work and a little more "natural" to me.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

CvK works in stories but I haven't found it to be a significant hinderance in play without loading the situation. Players tend to assume that opponents are going to be scaled appropriately to the campaign' date=' most villains are designed to the standards so its very difficult to actually harm (do Body) unintentially or at least lethal levels. Even then you can use a slighty lower number of dice in an attack without declaring your Pulling your Punch if someone seems fragile. The amount of fiddling to get things "just right" or setting up situations really doesn't seem worth it most of the time. Let the players decided (or the dice) if someone is killed or not and role play the repercussions feels like less to work me.[/quote']

 

Perhaps, but I don't think it takes that much work to make CvK viable.

 

Give me an example of another Psych Lim you prefer and how adjudicating it is different, perhaps?

[Greywind]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

"Never assume lest you make an ass out of u and me."

 

Work against the player's assumptions. Adjust the NPC designs.

 

Guess you pretty well summed up your position with "doesn't seem worth it most of the time" and "Let the players...feels like less work to me."

 

If what you do as a hobby seems like work to you, I'd honestly suggest finding a more relaxing hobby.

[phoenix240]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

True. And like those who disagree with me have said, there's a bit more inherent reluctance in a Superhero game, earlier editions of Champions might have required a few redundant Disads to make 150 pts that 6e doesn't.

 

I think a Fantasy Hero or Dark Champions character with Code vs Killing would be at a far greater disadvantage than a costumed crime fighter in a world of superheroes.

 

Another thing to consider of course, is the GM/Player joint interpretation of each Disadvantage/Complication, on a character sheet you have limited information and ideally the GM and Player have hashed out what it means. Even guys whom I would say have a Code vs Killing in the source material have done so - Comics Code driven or not.

 

There was a discussion in either one of the books or here on the boards where someone with a 20pt Total CvK came to the "Kill this entity or the universe dies" situation and the character did it without hesitation - and was haunted by it for much of the rest of his career, constantly wondering if he could have found some other way - or if he'd been wrong the entire time. Since these are just role playing aids and the character can evolve/change...I never saw this as a cop out or "wrong."

 

But did he lose/have to earn back the 20 pts he got for the Total CvK?

[Greywind]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I'd say "no". I would say that the character ended up with another psych problem for no points, same as you can pick up Hunteds through game progression.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Let's take a look at this from the other perspective.

 

How do our resident GM's handle PC killing and not?

I've seen at least one GM who doesn't think CvK is playable, and a few who disagree.

 

For a Supers Genre game, how do you handle lethality? Are mass murderers given long careers because you enjoy the character? Are players held responsible for their actions but never rewarded for playing their CvK well? Do you reward players for reigning in the body count?

 

I haven't run games much but to tell the truth I never had a Joker like villain. I had a few murderers who when captured disappeared while I made a new villain.

 

I tried to keep the idea of "Reoccurring Villain" without falling into "Players accomplish squat but the status quo."

 

Not always successfully This is why I play more than GM.

 

I don't usually have villains who actually murder like the Joker does. That's a much darker campaign than I run. I usually have plots that have theft of stuff from a place that will allow the villains to do something bad. So in a campaign like mine a CvK works out just fine. Also with so little death around if someone DOES die it carries a much heavier weight.

 

So CvK Common/Total may only work in Golden age - Early Iron Age campaign. Once it gets darker than that it may not be a good Psych complication to have.

 

Though even in a gritty death filled Rust age game CvK could work. A character with CvK could rationalize letting someone like the Joker live. Mostly because the Character captures the bad guy. Gives the Joker to the Police who have clear Jurisdiction. From then it's up to the justice system to take care of him. If the authorities can't keep the Villains from escaping, then the character should help the Authorites create prisons that can keep people like the Joker. Hell, Batman who seems to have a CvK could in the end only break the Joker's neck. Just enough to paralyze him not enough to kill him. I think that a CvK person would think that Killing would be hypocritical and would make the hero no better than the murdering villain.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Even before 6e (which resulted in the need for fewer Complications)' date=' I was moving away from CvKs unless something about the character's b/g really demanded its inclusion. It was getting too difficult to decide just what exactly it meant for one (ie: the PC won't kill, or the PC gets unhinged if [u']anyone[/u] tries to kill).

 

The more important problem is it forces the GM to create situations where the PC(s) killing someone is practically necessary.

 

If a Complication doesn't complicate the PCs life, it isn't a complication. If the GM never puts the player in the situation of contemplating lethal force, then it isn't worth any points to have a CvK.

 

In part, I'm just not interested in seeing how convoluted Batman's reasoning can get to justify letting the Joker live or how many people a character will let die just to keep the villain's 'literal' blood off his own lily-white hands.

 

Sorry, in a superhero game a character is always in a position where they might potentially use lethal force. A 12d6 normal attack does 10 body to a normal person. A slightly better trained person (PD 4) would take 8 body. Two attacks of that size can kill a normal unarmored person. CvK always comes up. That's why it's deemed Common. The first time a CvK hero uses an attack power on a Villain they have to wonder if said villain is tough enough to take the attack without taking any body. Now 99 times out of a hundred the Villain can take the 12d6 attack without taking any body. It just takes one guy dressing in tights and using some badguy's attack focus (ie Viper Energy attack gun) to be the one that only has 4 Def or even if they attack the blaster a segment after stunning the character (ie powered defenses down) to really hurt someone. It doesn't take you the GM to manufacture a punishment scenario to make the Complication come into play.

[Tasha]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

True. And like those who disagree with me have said, there's a bit more inherent reluctance in a Superhero game, earlier editions of Champions might have required a few redundant Disads to make 150 pts that 6e doesn't.

 

I think a Fantasy Hero or Dark Champions character with Code vs Killing would be at a far greater disadvantage than a costumed crime fighter in a world of superheroes.

 

Another thing to consider of course, is the GM/Player joint interpretation of each Disadvantage/Complication, on a character sheet you have limited information and ideally the GM and Player have hashed out what it means. Even guys whom I would say have a Code vs Killing in the source material have done so - Comics Code driven or not.

 

There was a discussion in either one of the books or here on the boards where someone with a 20pt Total CvK came to the "Kill this entity or the universe dies" situation and the character did it without hesitation - and was haunted by it for much of the rest of his career, constantly wondering if he could have found some other way - or if he'd been wrong the entire time. Since these are just role playing aids and the character can evolve/change...I never saw this as a cop out or "wrong."

 

I think that CvK became a staple of Champions to help new players overcome D&D thinking. New players coming into Champions after being avid D&D players have this "Kill the bad guys, and take their stuff" mentality. Forcing them to play characters with CvK is a way to remind them that they are playing a different genre from D&D. Yeah it's a crutch, but it's helped many players (myself included) to play Champs differently.

 

Again we as GM's sometimes make the Player's life too easy. When the PC's get Non Combat Surprise on Villains it's quite possible that the badguys don't have their Defenses up. Also as a GM it's too easy to build characters with no Vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities are part of the genre. Having the Ice Character take 2x stun and body from Fire attacks is part of the genre. Also having the PC with Fire Attacks be careful not only during the surprise phase, but also while fighting Ice girl is also important to the genre.

[Tom]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Sorry' date=' in a superhero game a character is always in a position where they might potentially use lethal force. A 12d6 normal attack does 10 body to a normal person. A slightly better trained person (PD 4) would take 8 body. Two attacks of that size can kill a normal unarmored person. CvK always comes up. That's why it's deemed Common. The first time a CvK hero uses an attack power on a Villain they have to wonder if said villain is tough enough to take the attack without taking any body. Now 99 times out of a hundred the Villain can take the 12d6 attack without taking any body. It just takes one guy dressing in tights and using some badguy's attack focus (ie Viper Energy attack gun) to be the one that only has 4 Def or even if they attack the blaster a segment after stunning the character (ie powered defenses down) to really hurt someone. It doesn't take you the GM to manufacture a punishment scenario to make the Complication come into play.[/quote']

 

True enough that the heroes are always in a position to use lethal force against 'normal' opponents. They also usually have multiple options to avoid using lethal force against 'normals' to end the situation.

 

While it may not be true in every group, I would tend to view poorly the GM who used a 'bait-and-switch' (someone in costume lacking defenses or appearing to be a known threat) to convince a player to use excessive force just to jerk on a Complication. In fact, I consider that to be a 'manufactured' situation and a 'punishment scenario'. Granted, the player asked for it by taking the CvK in the first place so the real question is how maturely is the player going to handle it.

 

Largely, its a matter of my own preferences. I belong to the school that says if you're not willing to shoot someone, don't carry a gun.

 

In the more appropriate context, if you're not willing to risk hurting someone, maybe dressing up in a costume and jumping into the middle of potentially violent situations and throwing around superpowers probably isn't the best of choices. Leave dealing with the costumed nutcases to the 'professionals' (whoever that might be)...

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

....

While it may not be true in every group, I would tend to view poorly the GM who used a 'bait-and-switch' (someone in costume lacking defenses or appearing to be a known threat) to convince a player to use excessive force just to jerk on a Complication. In fact, I consider that to be a 'manufactured' situation and a 'punishment scenario'. Granted, the player asked for it by taking the CvK in the first place so the real question is how maturely is the player going to handle it.

 

This is the second thread that someone has voiced this sentiment. And while I don't necessarily disagree with it I would point out that it is almost exactly what Joker attempted to do with the hostages in the last Batman movie.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

But did he lose/have to earn back the 20 pts he got for the Total CvK?

 

why should he?

[Tom]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

This is the second thread that someone has voiced this sentiment. And while I don't necessarily disagree with it I would point out that it is almost exactly what Joker attempted to do with the hostages in the last Batman movie.

 

Oh, it's a valid scenario. It's the comic book version of human shields.

 

But the only reason to do the scenario in a game is to trick the heroes into accidentally killing an innocent.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

There is a point to be made there. How often, in a game, do your PCs encounter enemies whose defenses are so low that there is actually a risk of Body damage being done, outside of 'bait and switch' scenarios where you have an opponent who looks like a credible threat but isn't, or arguably worse, the 'Gold' team scenario from a very bad Adventurer's Club article where you have enemies with 20 DC attacks, but 4 PDs and the inexplicable Phys Lim 'Takes Body from Ego Attacks'? Ideally, I think, in a game where someone has a CvK, this should happen times other than just when laying a trap, and you should tell the players up front that they cannot assume that all enemies will be capable of taking 12-14 dice normal (or whatever your upper PC damage range is) without taking Body damage. I've been in games where my 20pt CvK didn't matter much because every-single-enemy had at least 25 defenses, at least 20 Resistant, including agents. Unless I was tripping a Vulnerability and rolled crazy, or was applying an upper-end Killing attack, there was zip risk of dealing Body damage.

 

Edit: At some point, i'm going to go through my Enemies books and see just how many villains don't have at least 20 Defenses ...

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

This is the second thread that someone has voiced this sentiment. And while I don't necessarily disagree with it I would point out that it is almost exactly what Joker attempted to do with the hostages in the last Batman movie.

 

I think it depends very much on a) how the GM handles said bait n' switch and the expectations of said campaign. Give the players a chance to figure out that "something's not quite right" with Dr Terrible would be something I'd not lose too much sleep over. But could easily see some people being freaked out.

 

Also a tragedian player (remember those?) might relish having his CvK character accidentally break that rule.

 

But I will say that one common posted proverb is that the source material doesn't always jive with the game. There are many comic book and movie tropes that don't necessarily fly (or aren't desirable in a game) the Intellectual Property protection for villains being one.