Whatever happened to all the adventurous heroes?

[Storm Raven]

Aragon was shirking his duty to become king for a long time. Granted, what he ended up doing wasn't worthless, but the most heroic thing for him to do would be attain his rightful place at the throne. Yes, it's also true that before wasn't the time for it, but from what I remember he wasn't thinking "The catalyst for me to attain the throne hasn't occured yet," it was more like "My ancentors really messed things up; am I doomed to repeat their failure?"

Aragorn could not claim the throne until prophecy was fulfilled and he displayed the powers of Ilsidur's heir. Until then, his claim to the throne would have been laughed at. As it was, Denethor (and by implication many others in Gondor) was quite miffed at the idea of Gandalf trying to foist some backwoods northerner off on the men of Minas Tirith.

 

[random user]

Aragorn could not claim the throne until prophecy was fulfilled and he displayed the powers of Ilsidur's heir. Until then, his claim to the throne would have been laughed at. As it was, Denethor (and by implication many others in Gondor) was quite miffed at the idea of Gandalf trying to foist some backwoods northerner off on the men of Minas Tirith.

Yes, but did he actively go out seeking a way to gain/display his powers, or did he forsake his name and go off into the woods?

In D&D terms it would sound like:

DM: You discover there is an ancient prophecy which states that you will gain some powers in the future and become a king.

Player: That's fine, I'm just going to go hang with the elves.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, but did he actively go out seeking a way to gain/display his powers, or did he forsake his name and go off into the woods?

In D&D terms it would sound like:

DM: You discover there is an ancient prophecy which states that you will gain some powers in the future and become a king.

Player: That's fine, I'm just going to go hang with the elves.

Did you read the books or just see the movies? Because in the books there is no name to forsake, his lineage has been in exile for generations (his ancestors were an offshoot of Isildur's line, the kings of Arnor, which had collapsed and been conquered by the Witch-King). And he cannot fulfil the prophecies until such time as events make it possible to do so: he could not, for example, walk the paths of the dead until calling upon the oath-breakers would save Gondor, and so on.

 

[random user]

Did you read the books or just see the movies? Because in the books there is no name to forsake, his lineage has been in exile for generations (his ancestors were an offshoot of Isildur's line, the kings of Arnor, which had collapsed and been conquered by the Witch-King). And he cannot fulfil the prophecies until such time as events make it possible to do so: he could not, for example, walk the paths of the dead until calling upon the oath-breakers would save Gondor, and so on.

Yes, I realize there were limits to what he could do. But if this were a "typically expected" D&D campaign it would run something like:

Player: Hmm. That's interesting. How does the political system work? I should work on making some contacts so I'll have an easier time when I ascend.

or...

Player: What exactly does the prophecy say? Maybe I should find out more clues about this.

etc etc.

The point being that an "efficient" or "typical" D&D campaign would expect the player to be proactive, to care about it and try to find some angle.

And what was Aragorn's motivation to become king anyways? I firmly believe that he did it for Frodo and the fellowship, and not because he wanted to rise to power. He did what needed to be done.

When people care about other people -- that's where you get your real heroic stories. Dangling plot hooks where the players get a chance to be "heroic" is always going to be less effective than when players are motivated either by their companion or a specific higher cause, rather than "I should be a hero," in my opinion.

 

[Doug McCrae]

"One night, the ship is awakened to thumps, bumps, and faint screams from the cargo hold."

There's also an alignment issue here. I feel that any character of good alignment should, at very least, investigate. Someone might be in trouble.

 

[kigmatzomat]

Perhaps you should suggest the kinds of responses you expect and the corresponding "adventurers' logic" that goes along with it.

Here's what I'd expect from the core classes:

Barbarian: "Hope the fight isn't over yet...."
Cleric: "Lord, let me save the believers and smite those that offend thee."
Fighter: "Better gear up and find someplace more defensible and easier to escape from than this."
Mage/Sorceror: "Until I can erect a decent defense (or teleport), there is safety in numbers."
Monk: "Something is upsetting this ship's chi. This will interfere with meditation until resolved."
Paladin: "All in a knight's work."
Ranger: "Bet that was a (favored enemy)"
Rogue (loner): "Better find a better bolthole and set up some traps."
Rogue (greedy): "Dead people don't need stuff..."

Druid: ....I got nuthin'. On a boat I can't conceive of a fairly universal druidic motivation.

 

[Iuz]

There's also an alignment issue here. I feel that any character of good alignment should, at very least, investigate. Someone might be in trouble.

Good does not mean proactive; neither does it mean heroic.

It also is not inherent in good people that they assume noise equals trouble.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It also is not inherent in good people that they assume noise equals trouble.

Screams.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A lawful good character has a 'commitment to oppose evil'. Neutral goods are 'devoted to helping others'. Chaotic goods are 'kind and benevolent'. Lawful neutrals OTOH are not 'swayed... by the demands of those in need'.

It seems to me that *the* distinction between good and neutral is that good characters will help those in need, without necessarily receiving recompense (though even good guys need to eat of course) whereas neutrals will not necessarily help someone in distress.

 

[d4]

On the Player Side:
I think the DM has an obligation to find hooks that the characters will sink in to. What is the point of writing a character background at the beginning of the game, if not to provide a reason to adventure and to give the DM free hooks.

taking the other side for a moment, the PCs shouldn't expect every encounter to directly tie in with their backgrounds and the plot hooks they gave the GM.

i would think that most PC-types, not just good-aligned characters, would be interested in investigating the cause of the disturbance. it sounds like people are getting killed or at least seriously injured. a ship is a pretty small place, and what's worse, there's no real way of escaping. so whatever is hurting those people is bound to come around and get you too, eventually. even the callous, "me-first" neutral and evil types should be interested in getting those enemies before they have a chance to attack the PCs.