I know this has been discussed before, but I couldn’t find it and I had a q. Will they be just hero/villain cards that have split backs? also, did D say what set they would appear in? and what does everyone think of them?

Like, hero on the front, villain on the back? For example, Harvey Dent’s good side on the front, and his bad on the back? I can dig it. (shames self for using ghetto language)

Hero in the front, Villain in the back. Now I can’t stop thinking about mullets.

no, in some spoiler post i think, they mentioned some character cards will have backs that make them usable in both hero and villain decks. for the rest of my question, look at my first post.

It’s just going to be the character cards that have split backs, it wouldn’t work on the other cards in the deck as you could tell which were which by the backs. If you have a split back character you have to choose either hero or villain when constructing your deck, it can only contain cards of one type or the other.

They’ve said that there definitely won’t be any split cards in sets one or two, it’s something they were considering for an unspecified future set.

And I can’t find the original posts either, or I’d include links.

Personally I like the idea as it really suits certain characters, so long as they don’t overdo it. Maybe 2 per set at most?

Edit: Found it

I’d say one per set at most. It should be an ability you really don’t see very often.

Agreed with what Marth said… they pretty much gave you the idea that this would be black and white good versus evil. In moderation though these could be a great addition.

The only character I can think of who fits this mechanic is Mr. Bennet from Heroes. Now, he’s definitely a hero in that he wants to keep his daughter safe (and in the Dark Future, he ends up helping the evolved humans stay under the radar). That seems to be his core motivation. But there are a lot of people who hate him, such as West and all the others who see him as “the man with the horn-rimmed glasses.”

Other potentials:

Richard B Riddick

Tyr Anasazi (Andromeda)

Jordan Collier (4400)

Damar (DS9)

Thanks for the link, chaoschild. I’m looking forward to the split back cards, it’ll give more deck building options.

It also has me fairly excited.

Riddick a villain? Hmm… maybe in his pre-Pitch-Black days, apart from that though, you have to remember that villain and antihero aren’t the same.

Likewise, Alec Trevelyan from GoldenEye is 100% a badguy, unless you’re talking about his time as 006, working with James Bond. Same is true for Stephen Saunders, the villain of 24’s third season, who had a positive role in the events of Operation: Nightfall. Both of these characters are former MI6 operatives who are out for revenge, but I believe both should be classified as villains.

in regards to Riddick, villains and anti-hero’s aren’t the same, but by the same token protagonist does not mean hero… Riddick is an anti-hero just because he is a bad guy faced with something that is even worse. Hell the Chronicles of Riddick specifically calls him a form of evil, just a lesser evil to the Necromongers. And besides, the ending is left very ambiguous as to whether or not his path will continue to be so… positive. His methods are far to callous and self-centered for him to be a true hero, he’s just not been in the position (that we’ve seen) to truly be a villain. And as such could be argued both ways.

Well, never having seen any of the Riddick movies, judging by what you’ve said I would classify him as a villain. Just because he doesn’t have a chance to come out as the badguy is no reason to say he isn’t one. Is Hannibal any less of a villain in that he helps the hero catch the film’s primary antagonist?

Just remember this: villains CAN and DO fight other villains. You should look at the character’s motives, the reason for doing what they do, and ignore everything else, especially who they are fighting in the movies.

Riddick’s alignment depends on your stance on Deontology or Consequentialism.

If you believe that the ends justify the means, and that the choice leading to the best end result and the greater good is always the right choice. Then Riddick is hardly evil, as far as I remember he only ever took life to save people, save for maybe that ambiguous murder that got him arrested before Pitch Black.

If you believe however that the ends never justify the means, and that the act should be judged as the act itself, regardless of what it may or may not change in the long run. Then, Riddick would be evil because he takes life, and it’s as simple as that. However then you’d have to lump the Punisher in with him, as well as Braveheart, Aragorn, Luke Skywalker etc.

As for Hannibal, his job before he was discovered was a forensic psychologist, and so his motive for helping the police catch the other bad guys could be just the joy of what he does (or did) for a living. Again though, Riddick kills and commits other forms of evil in order to save people, I’m unsure of Hannibal’s motive but I doubt this is it…

So then, if Riddick’s motive is usually to save people, then he should be a hero, right?

His killings are hardly so high minded… he is merciless to the bounty-hunters that come after him (technically self-defence but taken a bit too far). And if you’ll recall, he really would have left everyone to die in Pitch Black if Fry hadn’t a) caught up to him and b) refused to leave the others behind. These are hardly the actions of a hero. But he does end up playing the hero’s role on occassion, but still pulls his methods from the villains bag of tricks. So with the hard division of villain vs. hero cards in this game he deserves access to both pools. Cause hero cards don’t suit him, but he’s not truly a villain.

Tyr ANasazi! Man he rocked. Until he decided to go off and do soap operas… :(

Unless said character is “God” or “Chuck Norris” wouldn’t pretty much everyone pull some methods from the villain bag of tricks? Obviously he’s not the paragon of all things virtuous, but he’s very clearly portrayed as a good guy in both movies (as far as I could tell at least, I could just be dumb, but oh well.)

I think they will stick to one card back personally…

They already said they wil. look above for the post with the official D statement.

But wild speculation is sooooo much more fun… :p

@SmokeytheBear: Fictional characters, unlike real people, have the capacity for universal goodness. There are sinless protagonists everywhere you look.

I want the “hero” and “villain” distinctions to be drawn from how the character acts. Whether Riddick is a good guy or a bad guy, the cards he should have access to should reflect his behavior, and if he is cruel and ruthless, he ought to be a villain regardless of whether or not the title of “Villain” suits him.

I’ll agree about universal goodness in fiction, but I will argue that none of these people are usually popular, as humans generally want to identify with fictional characters, and all humans have some measure of evil within them.

If only it was that simple though to label even fictional characters… Personally I can’t see any way that Riddick would be a villain before a hero all things considered. I’d almost adopt that any protagonist, unless made very exceptionally clear otherwise, would be deemed a hero.

So how do you define good? is it purly a persons actions, or is it their motivation? in the case of riddick, he almost always acted out of self interest, even when he did something good. Should he still be classified as a hero?