A Minor Concern

Regarding major firepower.

I'll keep this short. The average Super Weight for named characters in my 'verse is positively ridiculous. It goes so far beyond necessary it isn't even funny. I've got a group of people whose weakest members are confused for capital G gods, and whose strongest member eats the actual gods.

And yet my conflict revolves around one poor fuck trying to defend the Earth from them.

Now it helps that he is actually in a position where he is capable of fighting them, and just flat out destroying the Earth is not their main objective. As a matter of fact, they need to use Earth for something, so while they care little for collateral damage, they can't just flat out destroy it. They need it at least mostly intact.

So the question here is this. Is it believable for me to say the reason the worst thing that happens to the planet is Africa being reduced to slag is these people didn't really feel the need to wash the planet clean of any large land masses to deal with this one little shit standing in their way? On the one hand, as General Knoxx put it, it'd be like mowing your lawn with a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, results are results, and I usually try to avoid the "I'VE BEEN HOLDING BACK" schtick whenever I can, because it seems stupid.

Except now I need it. So, does not simply wiping out all life on Earth seem like a stupid course of action, or an appropriately proportioned response to the problem?

First of all, I would like to ask why there are "more powerful than gods" characters. Personally, I never stray far from the center of the Super Weight scale, but that's just me.

But while I'm at it, if the antagonist is near the power level of gods, should he have the power to simply obliviate someone without having to destroy all of Africa?

But we need more context about who's being targeted and why more precise methods can't work on him/her.

edited 9th Dec '11 2:25:30 PM by chihuahua0

You misunderstand. The protagonist has been temporarily elevated to their level, and while it was not the original intent of the one responsible, he has decided to try and fight. That's why they can't simply get rid of him and only him. If they could each do that to each other without having to exert much effort, they'd all murder each other within the afternoon.

As to why more precise methods can't be used, that's what I'm trying to ask. Is it reasonable for them to be more precise, considering the problem is, in their eyes, akin to swatting a fly? Like I said, you don't use nuclear weaponry to mow a lawn, so I doubt you'd use universe destroying power when you're standing on a planet you still need mostly intact.

edited 9th Dec '11 2:48:43 PM by KSPAM

What does "mostly intact" mean? You could burn the surface of the Earth to a crisp, boil the oceans, and blow away the whole atmosphere, and the Earth — considered as a big ball of mostly iron floating in space — would be, as a planet, mostly intact; the crust is just a thin layer on top, only a tiny fraction of the volume. Are humans needed? Are animals needed? Is any life at all needed?

Well, no. But that wouldn't necessarily guarantee that they'd kill this guy, and in their eyes, would be more of a waste than anything.