The Book of Batwoman

[Yodaking]

I would have said it did deal the extra wound. As far as I know MD only limits the actual attack roll result to a 1W cap, special powers that result in bonus wounds dealt after the attack roll result has been calculated are a way around MD.

[Ronin]

I'm fine with that ruling, but we do need to retcon the Undead Resilience ruling in that case. "Bonus" wounds shouldn't count as coming from the attack for the purposes of one special power, but not for the purposes of another.

[Lazy Orang]

Okay. Then it's worth noting that, in the test I posted yesterday on [redacted]'s Book, Kate would have won because the two extra wounds she'd have inflicted with Surgical Strike would have been enough to kill Selene.

[TrollBrute]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I'm fine with that ruling, but we do need to retcon the Undead Resilience ruling in that case. "Bonus" wounds shouldn't count as coming from the attack for the purposes of one special power, but not for the purposes of another.

Agreed. I do think that powers like Surgical Strike and Widow's Bite get around things like Magical Defense and Undead Resilience. At least clearly in the case of MD, as that limits the attack to one wound, but the other powers trigger after the attack and wounds are received. Undead Resilience may just be a dice-off, as they trigger at the same time, I think.

[IAmBatman]

Bulletproof Suit is a really cool idea that you enacted really elegantly here! Nice.

[TrollBrute]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Bulletproof Suit is a really cool idea that you enacted really elegantly here! Nice.

That one's an awesome @Margloth suggestion actually. I had some initial reluctance, but I really like the way it came out!

[Spidey'tilIDie]

My question is this (sorry if it's beating a dead horse), but why do we have to put a label on her? We don't point out that every heterosexual character is heterosexual, because it really has nothing to do with gameplay or the game. How is this different? And as someone who works with children, I strongly espouse that it should be up to the parents when they have a conversation about sexuality with their children, not C3G. I would strongly advise to just remove the reference all together because of that. If it wasn't in the OP, no big deal, but if people (children) will read any parts of this thread, it's the OP containing the cards and synergies.

[Viegon]

While I'm normally in favor of not making a big deal out of labels (and this is coming from a gay man), there are two points that I feel you're missing:
1) Batwoman's sexuality is a defining aspect of her character and origin story. Cutting it out of her bio would be like cutting Krypton out of Superman's bio, or Punisher's family out of his bio.
2) The problem with saying "let's be careful about LGBQT content around children" is that it creates an implication that LGBQT is inherently more sexually-themed/adult in contrast with heterosexual relationships (which children are commonly exposed to), except it's not. If we're exposing children to the idea of romantic relationships/falling in love/dating/marrying/etc., which most children are from pretty early on, why should it be limited to heterosexual relationships? You can just as easily discuss dating (for example) in the context of a homosexual relationship as you can a heterosexual one, without having to discuss anything directly relating to sex. This small difference of representation can create a negative view of LGBQT, which could be particularly harmful if one of those same children you're "shielding" turns out to be LGBQT.

My .

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by Spidey'tilIDie

My question is this (sorry if it's beating a dead horse), but why do we have to put a label on her? We don't point out that every heterosexual character is heterosexual, because it really has nothing to do with gameplay or the game. How is this different? And as someone who works with children, I strongly espouse that it should be up to the parents when they have a conversation about sexuality with their children, not C3G. I would strongly advise to just remove the reference all together because of that. If it wasn't in the OP, no big deal, but if people (children) will read any parts of this thread, it's the OP containing the cards and synergies.

Because it seems to be directly and strongly relevant to the character - and though you say you don't label straight characters that way, and while you don't all the time, when it's been relevant, it happens extremely often by implication - Cyclops and Jean reference being in a relationship, same with Green Arrow and Black Canary. The Wasp's second bio references her being shallow and commenting on the attractiveness of male Avengers to irritate Hank (which seems much less relevant than this), and Iron Man MkI's says hilariously, and I quote, 'Tony Stark is not a complicated man; he likes speed, girls, weapons, girls, making money, girls, and things that go boom. Oh, and he likes girls.' - and that's just a few. If it's relevant to the character, it should go in the bio, and based on what I've heard, it's massively relevant, and directly contributed to her becoming Batwoman. I don't think it needs to be done for every LGBT character, as it hasn't always been necessary - I know that Pied Piper and Mystique are apparently LGBT, but it not being in their bios isn't a problem - but when it's relevant enough an event or relationship that it would be mentioned if the character were straight, then I feel it should be.
And, as a gay woman myself, I find it genuinely hurtful that LGBT people should be considered something that needs to be hidden away. Really, how is homosexuality different from heterosexuality, unless it's been specifically made so? We're not talking about anything actually directly sexual here, and heterosexual relationships are portrayed all the time with no sense of concern - why should gay ones be any different? And this wouldn't be the first time C3G's done it anyway - Obsidian's and Northstar's bios both reference their sexuality, and Destiny's says simply that she and Mystique fell in love, which I actually think is beautiful for how simply and normally it's treated there, even if that bio does have pathetically undisguised Sherlock Holmes references (I mean seriously, Irene Adler? Consulting detective? Try harder Marvel). The only reason things like this are deemed different or seedy is because society has decided they should be, and it is nothing but harmful. And while we're on the topic of what's suitable for children, Huntress and Starfire's bios reference them being raped, the former when she was six years old. If we're happy leaving reference to such horrific acts up, but then consider the concept of a woman loving another woman inappropriate enough to censor, what kind of message are we sending out then? IMO, a straight-up (no pun intended) bigoted one, even if that isn't the intent.

~ Lazy Orang, who wishes she could someday live in a world where LGBT people are not considered shameful, dirty and unfit for the eyes of children. Seems we aren't there quite yet.

Originally Posted by Viegon

While I'm normally in favor of not making a big deal out of labels (and this is coming from a gay man), there are two points that I feel you're missing:
1) Batwoman's sexuality is a defining aspect of her character and origin story. Cutting it out of her bio would be like cutting Krypton out of Superman's bio, or Punisher's family out of his bio.
2) The problem with saying "let's be careful about LGBQT content around children" is that it creates an implication that LGBQT is inherently more sexually-themed/adult in contrast with heterosexual relationships (which children are commonly exposed to), except it's not. If we're exposing children to the idea of romantic relationships/falling in love/dating/marrying/etc., which most children are from pretty early on, why should it be limited to heterosexual relationships? You can just as easily discuss dating (for example) in the context of a homosexual relationship as you can a heterosexual one, without having to discuss anything directly relating to sex. This small difference of representation can create a negative view of LGBQT, which could be particularly harmful if one of those same children you're "shielding" turns out to be LGBQT.

My .

'd. This is exactly what I wanted to say, only you said it better, Point 2 especially. I've long despised the implication that LGBT+ relationships are inherently more sexual/seedy/inappropriate. Thank you Viegon.

[TrollBrute]

I don't want to remove it for a number of reasons:

1. There's nothing inherently shameful and wrong about it. Censoring any references to her sexuality implies otherwise and is harmful to LGBTQA people, including children.

2. How the hell is noon-heterosexuality an issue for kids to see, but violence and murder are A-OK? We didn't censor the murder of Batman's parents.

3. Kate's sexuality is directly tied to her origin. Without it, you're missing a major part of her motivation.

4. Can we stop pretending this site keeps a G rating? Heterosexual innuendo gets posted about constantly and no one ever complains. Plus, any children not already exposed to homosexual relationships in today's world are extremely sheltered.

[Lazy Orang]

Originally Posted by TrollBrute

I don't want to remove it for a number of reasons:

1. There's nothing inherently shameful and wrong about it. Censoring any references to her sexuality implies otherwise and is harmful to LGBTQA people, including children.

W. How the hell is noon-heterosexuality an issue for kids to see, but violence and murder are A-OK? We didn't censor the murder of Batman's parents.

3. Kate's sexuality is directly tied to her origin. Without it, you're missing a major part of her motivation.

4. Can we stop pretending this site keeps a G rating? Heterosexual innuendo gets posted about constantly and no one ever complains. Plus, any children not already exposed to homosexual relationships in today's world are extremely sheltered.

Originally Posted by Heroscapers

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to TrollBrute again.

Thank you, sir.

[laughing matter]

Originally Posted by TrollBrute

I don't want to remove it for a number of reasons:

1. There's nothing inherently shameful and wrong about it. Censoring any references to her sexuality implies otherwise and is harmful to LGBTQA people, including children.

W. How the hell is noon-heterosexuality an issue for kids to see, but violence and murder are A-OK? We didn't censor the murder of Batman's parents.

Noon Heterosexuality is fine. Heterosexuality at any other time of day is sick and wrong!

3. Kate's sexuality is directly tied to her origin. Without it, you're missing a major part of her motivation.

Exactly. She was kicked out of the Armed Forces because of her sexuality. Being kicked out led to her becoming Batwoman. If she was straight, she wouldn't be Batwoman.

4. Can we stop pretending this site keeps a G rating? Heterosexual innuendo gets posted about constantly and no one ever complains. Plus, any children not already exposed to homosexual relationships in today's world are extremely sheltered.

This is extremely true. I didn't even realize I was Bi until my last year because of all this heteronormativity in our society. My parents are hard religious right-wingers, and I never even heard the words homosexual or gay until I was around 12 or 13. Because of that, I didn't even think I was anything other than straight, despite the evidence to the contrary. Namely girl and boy crushes in my childhood, although boy crushes were repressed to the point of me thinking I just wanted to be friends. It would have helped me a lot when I was a kid if I knew what I was. Then, whenever anyone bullied me by calling m gay, I probably would have just said "well, you're not entirely wrong" and walked away instead of letting it get on my nerves.

Besides, If you people can have a conversation about Arkham's Man-Thing that lasts almost 3 pages, then this isn't a G-rated site