"Ultima Girl" (working title, PL 10-12)

[Sacremas]

Also I'm now sure I can't edit my own posts just after I've made them, I can see I can edit my previous post but not the one directly above this. Making this note to that fact to hopefully be able to edit my previous post.

EDIT: Yup I could, and now I can edit this as well. It may have been reloading the page that did it.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Sacremas

[KnightDisciple]

but if she takes serious lethal damage she may end up with a semi-stripperific look

Or just give her a Morphic molecules suit and avoid this concern, since we don't really go for "stripperific" looks around here. 

 

EDIT: My apologies if that came off a bit harsh, but it's just that our site's intended tone is such that "stripperific" isn't really something to aim for. Certainly your character doesn't need to fly around in 5 layers of burlap sacks, but PG-13, "like DCAU/Young Justice/Buffyverse" is a pretty good metric for this. 

Edited July 10, 2014 by KnightDisciple

[Sacremas]

Oh sure, if it happened then she'd switch to an armored costume like a breastplate or something like that likely to stand up to it. Basically I'm imagining that if it happened (which by itself would only be by a strange GM fiat since she's got a forcefield descriptor) she'd look down horrified as she regrew her eyes, and then as soon as the danger was over fly away with hands covering exposed bits, "I'm so embarrased!" type, then look into an armored costume while avoiding the looks of her peers if a photo got taken and ended up in the tabloids.

 

.... that or the Quick Change feat can have the descriptor of an unstable molecules cosume via Ultima science and be able to morph into a normal identity outfit as well.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Sacremas

[Raveled]

I'm curious about that Drawback. The character is vulnerable to Power Drains -- what would that be, exactly?

[Sacremas]

Drain specific cosmic power, drain or transfer powers in general, basically any drain effect or power built on drain that targets powers. For this purpose, "Sunlight" counts as a power-source and things specifically set up to drain sunlight (such as an arch-enemy's superweapon) will get the benefit of the +50 % DC.

 

EDIT: Although with that "common (every few adventures)" seems a bit much for that drawback, what if it also counted against Nullify and powers based on Nullify such as power resistance?

Edited July 10, 2014 by Sacremas

[Raveled]

So this character is extra-susceptible to being drained? Because everybody is susceptible to being drained.

[KnightDisciple]

Oh sure, if it happened then she'd switch to an armored costume like a breastplate or something like that likely to stand up to it. Basically I'm imagining that if it happened (which by itself would only be by a strange GM fiat since she's got a forcefield descriptor) she'd look down horrified as she regrew her eyes, and then as soon as the danger was over fly away with hands covering exposed bits, "I'm so embarrased!" type, then look into an armored costume while avoiding the looks of her peers if a photo got taken and ended up in the tabloids.

 

.... that or the Quick Change feat can have the descriptor of an unstable molecules cosume via Ultima science and be able to morph into a normal identity outfit as well.

 

Alternatively, she could simply not suffer "stripperific" costume damage. Ever.

 

Clothing damage is fine, but the term "stripperific" implies a level of objectification that's not appropriate for our site's tone. Heroes should not be flashing the public, even after fighting a legion of Omegadrones.

[N/A]

Sacremas, I think you're missing the larger point KD is trying to make.  Complications based in the sexual shaming of a character, whether they're female or male, PC or NPC, are not appropriate for the tone of stories on this site.

[KnightDisciple]

Sacremas, I think you're missing the larger point KD is trying to make.  Complications based in the sexual shaming of a character, whether they're female or male, PC or NPC, are not appropriate for the tone of stories on this site.

Also we're PG-13 so, you know, there's that.

 

Except I don't think Hugh Jackman butt shots would be valid here (hi thar XMEN DOFP!).

[Sacremas]

No I think you are mistaking me quite a lot. As I said, due to the force field, something like that could only happen by GM fiat, as otherwise she'd be quite shielded. Second, it would be a one-time note of realism, at which point she'd invest in sturdier costume for modesty's sake. Secondly, I'm using the word "stripperiffic" which I have never heard before because I read it on this site, I could imagine what it would be from the word, but it would take effect as a negative, one-time effect. Look at Superman in Death of Superman with his fight against Doomsday, his entire upper torso was bared, and Superman specifically has/had a forcefield that protects him and those immedialty near to him. Quite frankly if Superman can be exposed and objectified (and it is, you can't apply that just to women, that'd be discrimination of the other kind), then it happens to everyone. If it happens to Wonder Woman she just keeps one hand across where her eagle used to be for the rest of the fight whenever someone can actually see her that she's not intending to pummel anyway. You seem to think that exposure of skin is objectificaiton, but limit that entirely to one half of the population, to me classic Hercules for example has a stripperific costume, Namor even more so, and the authors seem to realize this by the fact that both characters are wearing much more clothes these days. It's not about what's actually done, it's what purpose they're done, if it's a realism "right let's make sure that doesn't happen again" with any "on panel" access only involve the hero making sure to keep out of sight and maintain modesty as opposed to keep on fighting butt-naked in the middle of the street, or even worse the player trying to get hero points for this effect or (and I actually saw this once) a player using the naked-ness as a descriptor for something like an emotion control effect or something equally asinine. That's something else entirely. Also please, please do not use Buffyverse as PG-13 specific or I'll pull up Season 6 screencaps and synopsis, like when the feminist culture icon was nearly raped by her ex. Though blocking that season out of memory is understandable.

 

But whatever, not going to argue any more, fine doesn't happen, it's a super ultima costume.

 

Incidentally for "stripperiffic" I'm assuming a "costume" like that of Gaiman's Angela (currently seen in guardians of the galaxy) counts for this? Also presumably as well classic Gamora. How about the following costume?

 

Alex Ross creation as far as I know. Not entirely appropriate as the character's basically Mary Marvel.

 

How about Power Girl's classic outfit? Boob-Window version from JLI and her own series.

 

EDIT: Even more to the point, how about Ms Marvel's classic Warbrid (Black with S + knee-high boots and gloves)? Because that with some variations is basically what I'm wearing.

 

So this character is extra-susceptible to being drained? Because everybody is susceptible to being drained.

 

Eh, not entirely sure what you're getting at. That's like saying everyone's susceptible to damage because of the innate 15 starting DC saving throw, as opposed to someone with Vulnerability to Slashing damage. Yes she's extra susceptible to being drained, if the saving throw DC against a Drain or Nullify Powers effect should be 20, it's 25 instead.I don't see how that's an issue unless you're specifically quoting a house rule ban on vulnerability that I couldn't find.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Sacremas

[Avenger Assembled]

I follow what you're saying about the vulnerability, Sacremas - I think it's fine (I've used it myself with PCs). 

 

As far as the costume, we generally avoid the comic book tendency to weirdly sexualize their female characters in their self-presentation.

 

Take a look at Gizmo's helpful >Visual Guide for the 'look' of our PCs. 

[Sacremas]

Yeah and I see what you guys are saying on it, it's just a matter of not putting everything into the same category, but evaluating for intent. If some thought is shown towards intent rather than automatically banning everything where even the concept of something not being shown becuase (1) it's in text format, and (2) the hero is actively making an an attempt not to show it. I think the intent of the rules you are quoting is to avoid objectification of women, which is fine, but it takes place as a lot of differnt ways (it's a matter of story happenings for example, like that vampire slayer almost getting raped by a vampire she was using just for sex previously, or the same two having sex in a crowded nightclub, never mind no one could see them... PG 13 means a lot of different things, and 13 year olds are a lot more adult than you seem to think), and it goes both ways. A very case in point example, I think the costume of the sample Ultima archetype in Archetypes and Legacies is a bit too much and sexualization. There's a very good chance the artist didn't mean that way simply by how well built the character is (yeah artists actually do that to diffrentiate between women you're supposed to see as sex objects and ones you're supposed to see as one of the guys), but a chainmail bikini is sitll a chainmail bikini.

 

Also by the way, thanks a lot for the PL 10 Ultima build man, and for all your other work, I enjoyed reading your build threads! Great, great work, really laid the groundrules, I had no idea where to begin previously. Some of the others like Doctor Doom as a hero is inspired stuff as well.

[N/A]

It is highly unlikely that any GM here would fiat that your character has been rendered embarrassingly nude or semi-nude.  If the odd person did fiat something in such poor taste, then the Mod team would drop the hammer on them in the blink of an eye.

 

The TV Tropes term "Stripperific" does not simply imply the wearing of revealing clothing.  There is so much more wrapped up in the idea.  The term describes a character whose state of dress in their day-to-day life leans so far toward the titillating (usually to the heterosexual male gaze specifically), and so far away from the functional, as to be ridiculous and offensive.

 

Skintight leotards and bathing suits are classic attire for real-life athletes and comic book superheroes alike, so they're fine for this site.  That pic you posted above stretches the limit, but would probably be fine if that bottom part extends below the sash/loincloth bit to cover her groin.  If there is risk that the character will flash their "naughty bits" to bystanders if they don't avoid certain positions, then it's not appropriate for this site.

 

And when people give you advice and examples of the tone this site generally strives for, please don't respond by nit-picking those examples.  Most of the television shows cited as examples ran for multiple seasons, so it's likely there are individual episodes, seasons, or subplots which deviate from the whole.

[Sacremas]

First of, and this actually is a nit-pick, pointing out how adult later entire seasons of a show quoted as being as PG-13 as Young Justice is not a a nitpick, that's pointing out an actual flaw in their reasoning. The other shows totally applies, Hawkgirl alone had plenty of opportunities for costume damage but it never happened. BtVS changed gradually because their audience grew, it remained PG-13 however and even Whedon's Avengers are considered PG-13 desptie Loki dropping the C-bomb on Black Widow. PG_13 means a lot ot of things, it cannot be used as a blanket, as 13 year olds are a lot more adult now than they were one or two decades ago. It's just as the world shows. Call it Silver Age instead as that's what the animated shows are going for (or specifically they're going for being approved in a PG-8ish timeslot) but not PG-13. Silver Age applies to a great degree because that was the inception of the Comics Code Autority which among other things had clauses specifically for that and which was originally directed at Phantom Lady's more and more revealing costumes during the end of the Golden Age. Yet Wonder Woman who's powers are neutralized by being tied up by a man stuck just fine.

 

Okay to show what I mean by intent, take this picture;

 

 

What it looks like to the uninformed: A woman is getting more powerful by taking off her clothes.

 

What it actually is: A cool superhero costume into a feminist icon. A feminist icon that's wearing less clothes per square inch than Power Girl at that, a character viewed as objectificaiton by one specific set of square inches missing, oriignally done in protest over artists because they couldn't put an S there.

 

Hopefully that should make what I'm  trying to say more clear.

[Sacremas]

The TV Tropes term "Stripperific" does not simply imply the wearing of revealing clothing.  There is so much more wrapped up in the idea.  The term describes a character whose state of dress in their day-to-day life leans so far toward the titillating (usually to the heterosexual male gaze specifically), and so far away from the functional, as to be ridiculous and offensive

.

Skintight leotards and bathing suits are classic attire for real-life athletes and comic book superheroes alike, so they're fine for this site.  That pic you posted above stretches the limit, but would probably be fine if that bottom part extends below the sash/loincloth bit to cover her groin.  If there is risk that the character will flash their "naughty bits" to bystanders if they don't avoid certain positions, then it's not appropriate for this site.

 

See now that I can get behind entirely, let me show you an example, I didn't like the Ultima's chaimail bkini (or perhaps breast-cups are more like it), but this is one of my favorite Skyrim armors that is revealing yet functional and as such I don't consider it over the top;

That's the kind of armor that while revealing and sexy to a degree doesn't stretch the imagination that it could actually be a functional armor, the main flaw of this armor is that the model has too large breasts to realistically go into close combat too often (historical amazons were known to cut off their breasts for this purpose, or just one because they got in the way of pulling the bowstring back), and is a whole other degree of realism and functionality over the breastcups armor, despite being almost as revealing. I don't view that armor as sexualizing in a way to turn the wearer into a sex-object, just a sexy costume, there's a very big difference. Wonder Woman's costume I'd call sexy, Power Girl I'd call sexualizing, and I can't decide on the last two Supergirl iterations. To me the white-shirted and hairbanded version from Animated Superman and Justice League is the best Supergirl, as she should remind of a teenager.

 

As for the other image I posted, the Alex Ross version, I'd certainly hope it's a fully covering under, as I hope Supergirl is usually wearing thick wool panties, otherwise putting it on a flying hero would have unfortunate implications. To be clear, while my hero's costume is a a dress who's bottom end is close to the girl of that picture (more like a knight's tabard than a dress for the lower part) she's most certainly wearing something to cover up underneath. I hope that should be obvious. Also by the way, I think that costume I posted is over the top actually, it just skirts the line too much, but more importantly it's put on an innocent Mary Marvel like character, which is sexualizing to her rather than sexy.

[KnightDisciple]

The armor in that picture is barely functional as clothes, let alone as anything resembling a protective device.

 

If you like how it looks, hey, free world. But that is most definitely a non-functional, sexualizing, barely-counts-as-clothes set of "armor".

[Ecalsneerg]

OK, here's the thing. The concept as a whole is sound, the powerset perfectly fine and all the other elements aren't causing issue here. But this one issue, of costume, is, as is the fact you seem so hung up on having a skimpy outfit.

Now, as to our content, don't think you can't challenge us. Frankly, we're willing to explain our reasoning, and what we mean by PG-13. Hell, I'm British, we don't have PG-13, they had to explain it to me. But we don't want stripperiffic costumes, and that Skyrim costume is not functional as armour in any way, and is incredibly goddamn skimpy.

[Sacremas]

OK, here's the thing. The concept as a whole is sound, the powerset perfectly fine and all the other elements aren't causing issue here. But this one issue, of costume, is, as is the fact you seem so hung up on having a skimpy outfit.

Now, as to our content, don't think you can't challenge us. Frankly, we're willing to explain our reasoning, and what we mean by PG-13. Hell, I'm British, we don't have PG-13, they had to explain it to me. But we don't want stripperiffic costumes, and that Skyrim costume is not functional as armour in any way, and is incredibly goddamn skimpy.

 

 

Okay, going back to the original "Ultima Girl" concept, he's my rework of AA's excellent PL 10 Ultima. The main difference here is that shield array, which makes her tough beyond her PL, and which when combined with All Out Power Attack (leaving her defense on +0) gives her +15 damage and toughness, suitable as a kind of "limit break" like I talked about before. Normally she'll be set to +10 defense / +10 toughness and +10 attack / +10 damage. The shield in both varieties manifests itself in a glowing golden aura, when she's flying at top speed this seems to stretch out behind her and looks like golden wings.

 

Concept (with thanks for the help) is a Ultima/Centurion hybrid created by Ultima super-technologies, they expected something like the next level of Ultima but weren't sure what they ended up as. Her non-Ultima status ended her up as a bit of an outcast on Ultima Thule, so she's now set out into the world to try to earn a place there instead. Costume will be a white armless dress of silklike material reacing down from below her knees with high slits on both sides for her feet to reach through unhintered, with a knee-high golden boots, and golden cloth bracers, and a golden S sort of like an italized reversed Z reaching from collar to below crotch-level. She has golden blonde hair kept up in the back with a clasp and held over her shoulder, if freed up her hair would reach all the way across her back. Her force field keeps her clothes intact and keeps her from ending up butt naked after a flamethrower encounter or the like, but if she takes serious lethal damage she may end up with a semi-stripperific look. Probably not something unknown even among male heroes.

 

Okay sorry but WTF? At some point in this discussion someone seems to have forgotten to have looked at my actual description. It's this, it's Ms Marvel's Warbird costume, white, but with the front as a tabard instead reaching down to the knees, knee high boots, and bracers. Except for the elbow length gloves, that's a less revealing costume than Ms Marvel wears.

Siren of the Freedom League is wearing a seashell bikini and a net. The Hellqueen is wearing bondage gear.

Edited July 11, 2014 by Sacremas

[Sacremas]

[Double]

Edited July 11, 2014 by Sacremas

[N/A]

That bit about "historical Amazons" is a ridiculous myth.  Five minutes on Google can tell you that.

 

That armor is a perfect example of the concept TV Tropes calls "Stripperific."  It isn't armor.  It's a hypersexualized parody of armor.  There's nothing "functional" about it.  It's designed specifically to appeal to the "male gaze."

 

When you react defensively to any criticism, when you nit-pick the advice we're trying to give you, you're missing the forest for the trees, to your own detriment.  When you focus on the minute details you think you can refute, you miss the larger point that we're trying to make.  Your behavior up to this point has shown you to be exactly the kind of player who gets banned in short order.  You've been doing nothing but raising red flags since you started posting.  Mining Basic Instinct of all places for character art is a red flag.  Accidental nudity being the first place your mind goes for your female superhero is a red flag.  Thinking that the video game pic you posted is, in any way, "functional" or "credible," is a red flag.  Those red flags are pointing to you being the kind of player that the existing players here do not want to play with.  You are not making a good first impression.  Most people who have read this thread have already written you off.  If you want to prove them wrong, if you don't want to get banned before you even get to play, then you should stop talking and start listening.

[Sacremas]

The armor in that picture is barely functional as clothes, let alone as anything resembling a protective device.

 

If you like how it looks, hey, free world. But that is most definitely a non-functional, sexualizing, barely-counts-as-clothes set of "armor".

 

Yeah you really haven't seen Skyrim armors have you? It's contextual, in the setting where a fur kilt with a fur bra (base armor that shipped with the game) can be upgraded to provide 95 % protection, that is dragon bone covering a shield arm, dragon bone boots, and metallic parts to cover other pieces. I can't even show you 99 % of the user created armors because it would certainly break the code of conduct here, and a lot of the armors that came with the game are just as skimpy. One of the most protective armors for men is a large panty with a belt, headband, bracers, fur boots. Trust me, in the context of the setting that is a very concealing armor among Light armors.

[Sacremas]

First off that picture of Sharon Stone is only sexual if you've actually seen the movie, in which case you are probably old enough to be reminded of it. If you havent' it's a picture of a beautiful woman with a confident look and an elegant buisness suit. It's all about intent, take the picture for what it's protraying, not the contextual background, any more than you would be free to assume the base character is a british martial artist who drive getaway cars because I posted a picture of Jason Statham from the Transporter.

 

Secondly, again on the armor, see my above post on context, and also please look up that Ultima image in Archetypes and Legacies, I brought up that armor (admittedly skimpy, I said it in the post I posted it in) to compare it to the Ultima one, where it's essentally just the bikini type. That armor has covered the shield arm sufficiently to deflect blows, it's got both shoulders partially covered, the legs are covered (it's not shown but the boots are heavy armorc covering every part not shown), and the crotch section is also metal and covered, and it's got details that add to functionality if not protectiveness. Overall a much better costume, if not a much better realistical armor (I didn't say it was, I only compared it to the breast-cups). In terms of costumes, it's much less revealing than what many superheroines are wearing, even ones not considered objectifying.

 

Okay, then let's analyze what I said, instead of what you said, and you can see where I started to become defensive;

 

The costume as I said above, is well within stated limits for, well the setting for one and if I looked hard through that sample thread you posted I can probably find one or two women with more revealing costumes. As said it's less revealing than Ms Marvel's costume, or certainly Wonder Woman's costume, and certainly more covering than at least two Freedom City stock characters, which whoever is to take part in this game would have been "exposed" to (not that I think a woman in a seashell bikini if not portrayed sexually is damaging to the young 13 year old minds, I wouldn't show it to an 8 year old that watched Young Justice certainly however). It does not show cleavage to any degree whatsoever, it's not necessarily tight-fitting, but it does show some leg, so that'll definetly get the blood pumping, given that no other superheroes shows legs she'll be quite unique.

 

That's the costume, now the comment that started this thing that derailed entirely;
 

 

Her force field keeps her clothes intact and keeps her from ending up butt naked after a flamethrower encounter or the like, but if she takes serious lethal damage she may end up with a semi-stripperific look.

 

Semi-stripperific was interprented to mean butt naked, which I in the prvious sentence specifically stated her Force Field makes impossible. What I meant was "strategically torn" as often happens to heroes, naked with breasts and other naughty bits would not be semi-stripperific unless your definition of stripperific involved hardcore pornography. Notably this was when I still didn't know what the term meant (it's since been explained, and it was a bad use), and I assumed actual stripperifici would still cover naughty bits, as I considered say Angela's costume (which I'm not posting here even) as actual stripperific, as do I consider the costume I posted, which was said to be approved if the very obvious bits was included. This kind of exposure would still be an embarrasement to the character, and as such she'd look into an alternate costume, as I'm trying to protray a kind of Supergirl here, and a young girl especially from a foreign land exposed to even minor amounts of exposure would find it embarrasing is what I assumed. If the Ultima are all nudists (which I have no idea about) then this doesn't apply obviously.

 

That's what set it off, and that the comment was misconstrued and that there could be several meanings to "revealing costume" for example was the only thing I was arguing, then I was asking about what stripperific actually meant, and providing examples one way or another as I quite a bit up had already said;

 

But whatever, not going to argue any more, fine doesn't happen, it's a super ultima costume.

 

 

As in me already giving up the argument about the possibility of even a semi-torn costume being possible (although at this point the realism involved if that never happens at all boggles the mind).

 

And this is considerd hostile, to the point where players are "writing me off"? And then you in addition to when saying not to nit-pick everything specifically nit-pick two things to enhance my flaws? Specifically hostile on a page where the TV tropes say you're ready to heckle off mary-sues and trolls and the like mercilessly, which I assumed to mean meant an adult forum, even within the PG 13 limits? I don't know, if this is you heckling it's more annoying but it's having the same effect.

[Sacremas]

This will be the last I post on that damn skyrim armor, in it's defense it's a modular armor where you add whatever you want to use, with more bits slowing you down more and more. The one I posted was the one closest to the Archetypes Ultima appearance I could find, below is what it looks like with all the bits added, at which point it will be slowing down your movement and attack speed compared to the skimpy version which protects much less.

 

[Avenger Assembled]

A lot of folks have reached out to you here, Sacremas.

 

What you should do now is back away from the urge to defend yourself and get on making your character sheet.

 

I would add, however, that we do avoid the more common pitfalls around how women are written and depicted in superhero comics not out of protection for immature readers - but out of respect for the characters and for our readers. Our characters dress the way actual people would dress if they were superheroes, not the posed nude figure drawing that so often passes for superhero comic art. We're interested in telling stories about them, not in rationalizing titillation. (You can assume that inappropriate attire on NPCs in the books should not be used for PCs here) 

 

If that's a problem for you, I don't really know what to tell you. It's a big Internet.

 

If not, then no worries! Plenty of room for telling stories here. I hope it's this one! Good luck. 

[Sacremas]

Thank you for the measured and calm words AvengerAssembled, I'll try to respond in kind by simply reposting my character sheet.

 

 

SUPREMA (PL 10 / 150 PP)

 

Abilities: 28 pp
STR: 16 (+3) / 38 (+14)
DEX: 14 (+2)
CON: 16 (+3) / 30 (+10)
INT: 12 (+1)
WIS: 12 (+1)
CHA: 18 (+4)

Saves: 9 pp
TOU: +15 (+10 Con, +5 Force Field) or +10 (+10 Con)
FORT: +10 (+10 Con, +3) +3 (+3 Con) without powers.
REF: +4 (+2 Dex, +2)
WILL: +8 (+1 Wis, +7)

Skills: 10 pp=40 r

Bluff 12 (+16)
Concentration 10 (+11)
Knowledge: History 4 (+5)
Notice 10 (+11)
Sense Motive 8 (+9)

Feats: 7 pp

All-Out Attack
Attack Specialization: Unarmed
Dodge Focus

Interpose

Move-By Action

Power Attack

Takedown Attack

 

Powers: 87 pp
Comprehend 2 (speak and understand all languages) [4 pp]

 

Cosmic Array [30+12=40 pp] [Cosmic Blast Descriptor is Cosmic Fire and can be partially resisted by both those immune to cosmic energies and fire effects, and can emanate from any part of her body - included stunted to an energy field aura - but is usually projected as yellow eye blasts, while the others are cosmic boosts, and could be countered by antyhing that can counter the Boost power]
Cosmic Energy Control 14 (PFs: Accurate) [Dynamic]

DAP: Enhanced Strength 22

DAP: Flight 14 (total of Flight 15 [500,000 MPH] )
DAP: Healing 9 (Extra: Action 2 [Move]) (Flaws: Personal) (PFs: Persistent, Regrowth)
DAP: Leaping 14 (x50.000, 10 rounds to complete jump) and Speed 14 (250.000 MPH)

DAP: Super-Strength 14 (1184 Tons heavy load, 19,2 Tons heavy Load with Enhanced Strenght and Super Strength 3, PFs: Groundstrike)

DAP: Telepathy 10 (Earth to Moon)
 

Cosmic Shield Array [5+1=6 PP]

Force Field 5

AP: Shield 5

 

Cosmic Health

Enhanced Constitution 14 [14 pp]

Immunity 12 (aging, life support, starvation, sleep) [12 pp]
Regeneration 1 ([Resurrection 1/week] (PFs: Persistent, Regrowth) [3 pp]

Impervious Toughness 10 [Descriptor: Energy Absorbtion], (Flaw: Energy Only) [5 pp]

 

Levitation

Flight 1 (10 MPH) [2 pp]

 

Morphic Costume [1 pp]

Enhanced Feat 1 (Quick Change)

 

Drawbacks

Normal Identity (if drained of sunlight or left without sunlight for several days, Takes one minute to recharge in sunlight to regain them, Major, Very Common, -5 points)

Vulnerable to Power Drains (Common, Moderate, -3 points)

 

Combat: 16 pp
Attack +4 (+6 Cosmic Energy Control/+6 Unarmed),
Defense +5 (+2 flatfooted), +10 (+2 flatfooted with Shield)
Knockback -5 with Shield, -7 with Force Field, -10/-12 versus Energy
Initiative +2,
Grapple +23

 

[Math: Abilities 28 + Saves 9 + Skills 11 + Feats 7 + Powers 87 + Combat 16 - Drawbacks 8 = 150 PP]

 

Background:

During one or more of the Centurion's visits on Ultima Thule, he left behind enough of his genetic material (assisted by covert scan of his biology) for a slightly rogue scientist to attempt to duplicate him combined with Ultima DNA. This scientist was Kal-Zor, the uncle of Kal-Zed, Superior, who wanted a legacy for his family that he could be proud of. In secret he worked to create a sort of "perfect Ultima" by combining the two cosmically infused bloodlines. What he ended up with, a daughter called Kal-Exia or Exia as a codename, became something else than he anticipated. While her potential for cosmic control was great, she seemed to have ended up with a mostly human physiology that needed regular infusions of energy to sustain. As she matured to young adulthood, she became able to absorb radiant sunlight and store it in her cells for some time to fuel her cosmic birthright, but by then the damage was already done. Kal-Zor considered Exia a failure, and wanted nothing to do with her, and his family had become even more ostracized in Ultima society for wrongfully using the genetic code of one of the only true outside friends the Ultima has had in milennia, and Exia took a brunt of those misgivings. Finding that she had no place at all in the society she was artificially born into, one night she simply set off into the skies on a southwestern trajectory, heading towards Freedom City, where is where her story truly begins.

 

Description: Kal-Exia or Suprema as she's intending to call herself (figuring Centuria would be too presumptous) is a beautiful woman who looks in her very early twenties. She's has golden blonde hair, almost white in coloration, usually held up elegantly with a clasp, and an athletic build. Her face is that of an eternally youthful and beautiful Ultima, with some slight romanesque features inherented from the Centurion. She wears a dress close to the common appearance on Ultima Thule, a modest white armless dress going from her neck to just above her knees, slited in sides to allow her legs free movement, and golden boots and bracers. The dress has  golden S on it reaching from just below her collar to midway down the dress. The dress is made of morphic materials, and can take the form of for example jeans and a top if she needs to blend in more, and is several degrees tougher than normal material, protected in turn by a slightly shimmering gold force field that she wears. In high flight speeds the force field seems to stretch out behind her, forming angelic wings.

Edited July 20, 2014 by Sacremas