Superhero: Setting histories based on the Ages of Comics

Doug McCrae

Legend
My current campaign has a history based on the ages of comics – Golden, Silver, etc. Appropriate characters appear in each time period. For example Golden Age superheroes are powered by chemicals, radio waves or by learning magical mysteries in Tibet. Silver Age heroes are aliens or radioactive. Communists are often involved in their origin stories. And so on.

If you have created a similar campaign history, how did you approach it? Did you make any unusual decisions?

I made my Superman analog, Johnny Tomorrow, a Silver Age hero rather than Golden Age for a number of reasons. As an alien, Superman's origin feels more SA than GA. The comics of the 50s and 60s were, imo the best Superman stories. The Superman that's the hero's hero, the hero against which all others are measured, is the Superman of the SA. I gave Johnny Tomorrow a mysterious death in 1963, JFK and MLK style. I always felt the best SA Superman stories are the ones where he dies, which happened quite frequently as they were all 'imaginary stories'. They're like the death of Balder.

One could have a 1938 social activist Superman as well, you would if you were Warren Ellis, but I feel that Superman is a relatively minor figure. He only stayed that way for about a year, not at all necessary for a hero history. There doesn't really have to be a definite 'first superhero' at all imo, several could've appeared more or less simultaneously, it doesn't matter that much who was first.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

If you have created a similar campaign history, how did you approach it? Did you make any unusual decisions?

Depending upon my inspiration du jour and the players I'm designing a campaign for, my supers campaigns have run the gamut from actually using comic book worlds, to derivatives of them, to left-of-center (as detailed here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-rules-discussion/255927-starting-new-m-m-campaign.html )
I made my Superman analog, Johnny Tomorrow, a Silver Age hero rather than Golden Age for a number of reasons. As an alien, Superman's origin feels more SA than GA.
<snip>
One could have a 1938 social activist Superman as well, you would if you were Warren Ellis, but I feel that Superman is a relatively minor figure.

There are hordes of Superman variants, each with a peculiar charm. Besides the various incarnations of Supes himself, DC gave us his 4 post-Doomsday stand-ins, Mon-El & Ultra Boy from the Legion of Superheroes, Capt. Marvel (and the whole Shazam family, originally from Fawcett Comics), Black Adam & Capt. Thunder (Shazam-esque villains), The Martian Manhunter, Icon (Milestone imprint) and even Wonder Woman (sort of). And other companies have their own variants.

Hyperion & Thor from Marvel; Supreme from Image; Dark Horse's Titan (who, interestingly, went crazy and had to be killed)...

It seems nearly every company that did superheroes did a Superman-type character. Even storylines like Astro City and the Powers comics have them. The man-god is inescapable.
 
Last edited:

My current campaign has a history based on the ages of comics – Golden, Silver, etc. Appropriate characters appear in each time period. For example Golden Age superheroes are powered by chemicals, radio waves or by learning magical mysteries in Tibet. Silver Age heroes are aliens or radioactive. Communists are often involved in their origin stories. And so on.

If you have created a similar campaign history, how did you approach it? Did you make any unusual decisions?

This is kind of an interesting idea to me Doug. For two reasons.

Now I don't play "regular superhero" games, and even the "superhero comics" I write aren't regular comic characters like regular superheroes. For instance with my characters "powers" are always fluid, never fixed, and heroes are not always even aware of what their powers are exactly, or the full range of those powers. But I also like your ideas especially those contained in the first paragraph.

I have a personal theory about God Technology which sort of parallels your breakdown of divisions in power distribution (among superheroes). That the technological capabilities of the age shadow, or even determine how those same (and other) capabilities are expressed in a given era. I mean that in relation to how technology is expressed throughout a society and culture, but it could just as easily apply to how the individual takes advantage of technological capabilities, and in your case of how superheroes react to the technology responsible for their powers, and how technology influences or shapes those powers and capabilities.

But I often think that with most comics something is usually overlooked in regards to the technology-superhero interface, and that is the way in which supermen (I'm using that term to designate all superhero types, even, or maybe especially heavily technology and gadget dependent guys like Batman) would actually influence, modify, invent, and develop both old technologies, and new technologies, and thereby change the way the entire society looks at and interacts and interfaces with technology. It is extremely unlikely to me that anyone like a Superman (the modern one), having access to advanced technologies, from a world or worlds like Krypton would be satisfied with the current technological status of the world. That he would naturally, as a result of his own nature and interfacing with and knowledge of advanced technologies, automatically set about spreading a new technological paradigm throughout the US, if not the world. Any superman, realizing that his or her technology would be of practical and even humanitarian benefit would naturally want to disseminate their beneficial technological capabilities far and wide. (After all superman can only be in one place at a time, but his technology can be as ubiquitously spread as immediate circumstances allow. And this idea of "the world isn't ready for this" is a complete canard of comic writers. Regardless of circumstances people always make use of new technologies, sometimes wisely, sometimes not, but the point is that people demand to make use of technologies, they do not let them sit fallow and unemployed. Somebody would see something in use then seek to emulate or redesign it, and soon would, and then would just as soon spread it throughout society, both to improve conditions and to make profit. Only in the limited imaginations of comic book writers is this natural impulse of man not understood concerning advanced technologies. Nothing of real use would be wasted on the speculation of the "day to come when we are all ready." Who determines that day and what qualifies as being ready? No, people build and design and invent things, and readiness develops as a matter of actual application. It is an organic, not a calculated and mathematical process. It doesn't really happen the other way around. Except in comic books.) And given our world and how rapidly our new technological achievements diffuse throughout the society and culture, it's very hard for me to believe that any sufficiently advanced superman, much less a group of supermen, would not fundamentally and rapidly change everything around them, like it or not. And they would likely advance technologies in ways we have not yet anticipated, and in both enormously beneficial ways, and in unintentionally malignant ways. But I just don't think (I know in truth) it would actually work like one man (Batman for example) retains in his own Batcave a number of unique and fascinating gadgets for purely personal use, or that alien (Superman) or advanced (Iron Man) technology would long remain the private domain of a very few individuals.

As a little sidenote I wrote a long essay on the Three Supermen of the Twentieth Century. The entirely fictional Superman (of the comic book model) who is American and stands for the principles of Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Despite being entirely fictional (not a real person) the American model is universally applicable to any free man, or society of free men, or society of men who desire to be free. That is to say the principles of Truth, Justice, and the American Way can apply to anyone who so desires, and are obviously not limited to Americans or America, it's just that America is the home-model of that type of Superman. The second model was the Nazi Ubermensch. The Nazi superman was not principle or ideal based, but rather racial, political, and war-based (conqueror). He was obviously in direct opposition to the American ideal of Superman and he was of course not universally applicable because he was racially founded. The Nazi Superman seemed typified by the blonde haired blue eyed Nordic man but was in actuality the invention of men like Hitler and Himmler. The third Superman was the Marxist/Communist who was economically and politically based and was typified by Stalin (whose name actually mean "Man of Steel). The Communist superman seems on first glance to be universally applicable but since it depended upon the idea of economic class being the determination of value and capability towards both individual and societies, and sought to eventually reduce all men to the same economic class, it was of course in actuality very exclusionary and despotic, the despotism being one of class, not race. So you had two tyrannical ideals of the Superman in the twentieth century (and they are still with us to a certain or limited extent, the idea that the superman ought to rule by a notion of self-conceived superiority of group rather than serve out of wider responsibility to all), both exclusionary and despotic (one racially so and the other economically so) and a third ideal that looked beyond both race and class and gloried in and exemplified individual responsibility and capability and free will/choice over pre-determined or mundane characteristics. I always thought that this was a fascinating real world clash of ideals that occurred in the last century. And today you even see a sort of new Superman ideal with the rise of religious-based terrorism, the ideal of the Religious Superman (and to a smaller extent the Nationalist Superman), which is also an exclusionary idea about who is in fact superior and why. I think this will be an interesting historical development as well as in one way it completes the circle, race, class, religion, nation or tribe, individual. That of different types of Supermen in operation in the world, and eventually which ideal or ideals will succeed or fail, and in what way or ways. I also find it interesting how each ideal of the Superman makes use of technology in a different way, beneficially or corruptly.

I have no idea how Microsoft edited this thing guys. So if you see obvious typos or grammatical or terminology mistakes then forgive them. I just came out of my tent and I wrote fast.
 

There are hordes of Superman variants, each with a peculiar charm. Besides the various incarnations of Supes himself, DC gave us his 4 post-Doomsday stand-ins, Mon-El & Ultra Boy from the Legion of Superheroes, Capt. Marvel (and the whole Shazam family, originally from Fawcett Comics), Black Adam & Capt. Thunder (Shazam-esque villains), The Martian Manhunter, Icon (Milestone imprint) and even Wonder Woman (sort of). And other companies have their own variants.
Yeah, Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman are Superman to a large extent but also are different enough to make them both very interesting characters in their own right. It's kind of hard to do Captain Marvel in a modern setting, the boy->man transformation feels very weird these days. My memory of reading LoSH in the mid-80s is that Mon-El and Ultra Boy were both pretty dull.

Warren Ellis has done three good variants on Superman.
1) Apollo, the gay Superman from the Authority. Having Superman and Batman as lovers is a brilliant riff on their best buddies relationship in the 50s.
2) The High, from StormWatch, who's pretty much the 1938 left wing change-the-world Superman but in the present day.
3) John Horus from Black Summer, who seems to morph from the straight arrow Superman into the 1938 version when he can stand no more. The first event in the comic is his killing of the POTUS, which is a strong start, no matter what your politics are. The comic eventually shows this action to be badly mistaken.

Mark Millar's communist Superman is another interesting take. It's weird how so many of the interesting Supermen are deeply political. Including Wonder Woman, really.

Another good variant, not political at all, is Bizarro. For some reason I find him a much more compelling character than the Phantom Zone criminals. They are just evil, whereas Bizarro is the failed, idiot Superman. I think it makes for a great contrast given that Supes is so perfect.

Even storylines like Astro City and the Powers comics have them. The man-god is inescapable.
Well Astro City also has an Ages of Comics thing going on. Busiek's Supermen are Samaritan in the modern day, who seems to be just all about how hellaciously *busy* Superman must be, and the early 60s Atomicus, who highlights Supes weird, screwed up SA relationship with Lois Lane.
 

Jack7, you're right. If superheroes with advanced technology were real our world would become a very different place. Technology, such as the atomic bomb, always seems to proliferate. This idea can't really be explored in mainstream comics, as DC and Marvel like to keep our recognisable world existing alongside the mad one of aliens and Ultrons and other dimensions and so forth. I don't think it's down to a lack of imagination though, there are good story reasons for this, such as wanting a contrast between the two elements - the commonplace and the marvellous. If everything was marvellous then marvellousness would lose it's shine.

The idea has been explored in Alan Moore's Watchmen and Marvelman AKA Miracleman. Warren Ellis's Planetary posits that the marvellous - pulp heroes, 50s atomic monsters, aliens, superheroes, etc - has existed in secret for most of the previous century but that it is being kept from the public by a group called The Four. They are an evil version of the Fantastic Four, Ellis answering the question that you also asked - Why doesn't Mr Fantastic use his knowledge to benefit mankind? Ellis's answer is "Because he's a bastard." That's British writers for you.

And today you even see a sort of new Superman ideal with the rise of religious-based terrorism, the ideal of the Religious Superman
What if Kal-El's rocketship had landed in Afghanistan?
 

But I often think that with most comics something is usually overlooked in regards to the technology-superhero interface, and that is the way in which supermen (I'm using that term to designate all superhero types, even, or maybe especially heavily technology and gadget dependent guys like Batman) would actually influence, modify, invent, and develop both old technologies, and new technologies, and thereby change the way the entire society looks at and interacts and interfaces with technology. It is extremely unlikely to me that anyone like a Superman (the modern one), having access to advanced technologies, from a world or worlds like Krypton would be satisfied with the current technological status of the world.

I personally think that heroes (especially alien ones like Supes would be eminently familiar with culture shock, and the danger that rapid introduction of highly advanced technology would pose.

Let's be clear - once a technology is no longer directly in the hero's hands... it is out of their hands. Humanity will do with it as they well. Historically, what humans first do with new and advanced tech is not very pretty. heroes usually understand this.

Also, the advanced tech that both heroes and villains have is generally sufficient to replace or defeat the hero, especially if allowed into mass production. The hero who lets their tech out will be building villains who can beat them. The villain who lets tech out ensures that they will not have a monopoly on power.

Iron Man comics carry that theme strongly, for example. Many Iron Man villains are folks using stolen Stark technology.
 

This idea can't really be explored in mainstream comics, as DC and Marvel like to keep our recognisable world existing alongside the mad one of aliens and Ultrons and other dimensions and so forth.

I think from a technical, storyline point of view you may very well be right Doug. For purposes of drama it may well be better to keep some part of the world recognizable versus the way things would really be if such beings and such technology proliferated in the world.

I hadn't really thought if it that way in relationship to storyline, because I always thought it silly compared to the way it would really work, but it's a good point. Because otherwise all you might have would be a readership of techno-comic wonks, whereas the ordinary comic fan base is already small enough as it is.

And yeah, I think non-mainstream comics often do a far better job of trying to predict how things would really operate in this regard.


What if Kal-El's rocketship had landed in Afghanistan?

A sort of Supertaliman?

It's an interesting question to ponder because you always have to consider, with anyone of a basically heroic nature, much less a superheroic nature, how much of what they are is intrinsic and natural to their own character, and how much is trainable by upbringing and external influence?

And that could apply equally to cultural, racial, religious, national, ethnic, and other influences. When it comes to superhero characters this is always an important question as far as I'm concerned because the interplay of these various environmental and individual forces, it seems to me would both set the limits and boundaries of their moral behavior, and would provide the impetus to help determine in what ways and how fully they are willing to make full use of or exploit their powers and capabilities.

The same is true of ordinary people of course, but the choices superheroes make in regards to the cultural, national, religious, moral influences they adopt and pursue might radically affect a large number of other people in any given circumstance wherever they operated. It might also radically affect what they consider their "jurisdiction of operation." After all most superheroes create for themselves or decide for themselves what their own field of operation or areas of interest will be.

Instead of imagining superheroes who basically protect cities or limited geographic areas, imagine instead superheroes who only work cases involving religion, or a specific group of people, or only work terrorism related crimes, or only work violent crimes (I for instance, not calling myself superheroic or heroic by any means or stretch of the imagination will only investigate violent crimes, because I have no time for, or interest in, other types of cases).

And of course Idea-related superheroes do occur, the X-Men for isnatcne, but the ordinary association is with the geographic jurisdiction type superhero, such as Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and Daredevil.

I think this is probably because most classic comic characters arose from the era in which people still mainly associated themselves with their city or hometown, not so much with broader "movements, ideals, and interests."
 

There are also some interesting bits of non-comic book writing involving superheroes.

Larry Niven's speculative essay, "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex" from All the Myriad Ways is an exploration of how Kal-El might try to propagate the Kryptonian race...it is HILARIOUS.

There is an anthology of superhero stories called- imaginatively enough- Superheroes. It includes a story by the anthologist himself (John Varley) called "Truth, Justice and the Politically Correct Socialist Path." It is, more or less, the origin of Superman ("Krypton" becomes "Xenon") where he lands in Russia instead of Kansas.

And of course, there is the fabulous Wildcards series.
 

It is extremely unlikely to me that anyone like a Superman (the modern one), having access to advanced technologies, from a world or worlds like Krypton would be satisfied with the current technological status of the world. That he would naturally, as a result of his own nature and interfacing with and knowledge of advanced technologies, automatically set about spreading a new technological paradigm throughout the US, if not the world. Any superman, realizing that his or her technology would be of practical and even humanitarian benefit would naturally want to disseminate their beneficial technological capabilities far and wide. (After all superman can only be in one place at a time, but his technology can be as ubiquitously spread as immediate circumstances allow. And this idea of "the world isn't ready for this" is a complete canard of comic writers.

I can't really agree with this.

While he might be dissatisfied with the overall tech level of his adopted homeworld, he'd at the very least pick and choose what he'd disseminate to humanity, and on a carefully chosen schedule.

After all, you don't give handguns to toddlers or machetes to chimpanzees, do you?

Lets face it, despite being incredibly smart, Supes' wisdom and intellect is still finite, and thus, still subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Imagine, if you will, a dictator's regime successfully acquiring and applying the knowledge Supes had about advanced alloy manufacture. Suddenly, they produce tanks that their neighbors' armaments can't affect...

Or what about releasing a true panacea against disease when humanity is having population control issues?

His understanding of his homeworld's tech will be through the filter of whatever survived to reach Earth. Does he know if the Kryptonian biosphere was as healthy as Earth's at that higher tech level? Or did Kryptonians wreck their planet in their relentless pursuit of tech, with all of the planet's population living in towering arcologies while the rest of the world was a toxic wasteland? Was Jor-El a greenie or a technocratic despoiler?

Assuming that Kal-El is at least marginally wise, he'd at least be hesitant to just release tech willy-nilly. He does have his doubts about us, you know.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top