How is the Wizard vs Warrior Balance Problem Handled in Fantasy Literature?

[pawsplay]

The problem I have is that he is claiming that because Batman has "normal guy" as an origin story he can never be thought of as being extrahuman or superhuman unless something objectively supernatural happens to him.H is belief is that the supernatural requires the supernatural to occur. Batman can't be a superhero because an alien never gives him a magic ring, or because a radioactive spider never bites him.

In other words, you can never be Beowulf, because a wizard never makes him magical.

You seem to be equating fantastical with supernatural in a way that I think a lot of people, including myself, are unwilling to agree to. In a sense you're saying that because they do what normal people do not do, can not reliably or feasibly do, James Bond, Sherlock Holmes, and Robin Hood are supernatural. I would say they're unrealistic, just in a very realistic way.

Many characters with supernatural powers, like Beowulf, have natural origins, while others, such as Perseus or Lancelot, have supernatural origins but no overtly magical powers. Batman is a modern myth, an embodiment of American-style humanism and heroism. If you take away his Puritan work ethic he ceases to be a superhero. Simply equating him with someone like Beowulf or Lancelot makes Batman not Batman, as surely as Perseus ceases to be Perseus as soon as you say his father is not Zeus.

Batman cannot win against Superman and the like because he is superior by nature, or the whole story breaks down. Batman wins despite being purely human because of his tremendous character, will, and work ethic, not to mention a little luck. If you stat him up in RPG terms and make him literally beyond human, you have gone astray. Moxy is not a superpower. Batmans is the king of moxy. That's why he wins. he's Jack the Giant Killer, he's Aladdin, and Little Orphan Annie, not Beowulf, Lancelot, or Perseus. He may be a billoinaire, but as an orphan and a kid from a rough town, his origin is that of scarcity and necessity. He's not Lancelot, he's Percival; his chief weapon is the clear-sightedness of spiritual certitude. His nature is common, and his circumstances are the product of chance, or destiny.

The reason he and Superman are a popular teamup is because they are alike in relying on their determination and moxy. Each one regular defeats foes above their weight class, whether it's Batman versus Lady Shiva, or Superman versus Zod. That's why those stories work. The Kryptonian and the American are alike in being unflinching, and those teamups hightlight that commonality, as well as their relatives strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Utterly irrelevant. He has experienced loss as the emotion. He has not lost as the narrative design.

Narrative.

The word has meaning.

In OHMSS, Bond marries the girl because he wants to. That is part of the narrative. She gets shot by a sniper in what is probably one of the most effective closes in a Bond film. That is part of the narrative design.

IN CR, Bond quits and goes to be with Vesper because he wants to. That is part of the narrative. She gets killed by Quantum, and he fails to save her, as part of the narrative design. So strong is this thread in the narrative that it is the driving force in the next movie.

The name of the sequel, "Quantum of Solace", comes from an Ian Fleming short story, where it refers to the minimum comfort needed to be able to go on (in the original story, to go on with a relationship). It is apt for the movie, where Bond is only to gain a minimum of comfort, allowing him to go on after Vesper's death.

I begin to think you either have never seen these movies, or that you fail to understand narrative.

Similarly, in Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, we see Bruce Wayne have a chance at a normal, happy, life......a chance that is taken away from him. The Gotham World's Fair is used as a symbol of Bruce Wayne's future: first a bright, shiny place (which nonetheless has the model the Batmobile is designed from); second as the lair of the Joker; third being blown up and destroyed completely.

There is little doubt that in BMotP, Batman loses. He loses his chance at happiness (twice), he fails to catch the Phantasm, he fails to prevent the mobsters from being murdered, he fails to stop the Joker....all he has at the end is a slight hope of some future where he might attain again some of what he lost. It is a sad ending, and one of the best.

In all of these films, the hero survives, but the hero also loses. Well, in QoS, Bond might be said to win minimally (in that he gains the satisfaction needed to continue)....everyone he sleeps with is killed, as is his friend. He has a lot of guilt weighing on his mind.

That is the gist of the narrative.

I have had fiction published, and I have been paid for it. Samples are available on my website. I have some idea of the meaning of narrative.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Prof C, all I would want to add to your post is that you leave out Conan as perhaps the most salient of (post-)modern heroes when talking about D&D warriors.

But yes, Beowulf and Conan both get stripped of their power and heroism if we insist that their modernism (if we can talk about that in relation to Beowulf) be reflected not only within the fiction, but at the metagame level of the player's protagonism.

Not if we model the stories.

In the Conan stories, it is clear that

(1) Conan is a mortal human. The first thing that we are told about him is that he is long dead.

(2) Supernatural forces have an interest in his doings......but not because he was born as a demi-god or chosen one; rather they are interested in him because his actions make him important to their goals in the world.

Thus, his hit points and saving throws rise not only due to personal power, but to some level of divine protection. And, likewise, he is directly (and occasionally explicitly) used by the good gods of the setting to deal with their foes, who serve the evil gods.

But, since Conan is not himself supernatural, he sometimes requires the aid of those who are in order to defeat them. This is a theme in the first Conan story, and is a major theme/plot point of the only REH Conan novel.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

It makes equipment inherent to the character's power. Strip them of their level granted equipment and they become useless. Its an okay concept for certain archetypes like gadgeters and artificers, but for others things like techniques work better.

1: Mythically, narratively, equipment is inherent to a character's ability. Arthur without Excalibur is just a squire. It's also a way that "normal" fantasy heroes equalize themselves with the creatures around them. Without some augmentation, they aren't "normal" anymore.

2: "Strip them of their items" is like "stick naked them in an anti-magic zone." If you're doing that, you want them to become useless.

3: You don't have to use it in exclusion of other abilities. Fighters get to make their own magic boots of striding and springing; maybe monks don't need to make the boots. Ultimately, same effect.

OTOH, simply doing that makes treasure kind of boring...

I would rather give out Interesting, Unpredictable Item Of Magical Chaos And Plot Creation than another +X Slotted Item To Your Specific Niche Because Otherwise You Will Suck anyday.

In other words, letting people make their own defining equipment frees me up to give out unique, unpredictable magic items like candy.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The problem I have is that he is claiming that because Batman has "normal guy" as an origin story he can never be thought of as being extrahuman or superhuman

Batman can't be a superhero

Are you aware of what you're doing here?

Batman is not extrahuman or superhuman. Batman is a superhero.

"Superhuman" and "superhero" are not the same thing. If you and others continue to use the words as synonyms, of course you're going to continue to misunderstand.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

D&D also took a stab at that with Weapons of Legacy, but it was ultimately too bogged down with feat requirements.

Just FYI, the feats required to use weapons of legacy were actually given to the bearer free. The complaint against weapons of legacy were that the sacrifices (e.g., loss of hit points, penalties to saves) were too much. (I disagree, but I'm solidly in the minority.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would rather give out Interesting, Unpredictable Item Of Magical Chaos And Plot Creation than another +X Slotted Item To Your Specific Niche Because Otherwise You Will Suck anyday.

Not quite on my point, which was if all PCs can make their own actual magic items- if it's built into the classes- then there is a commonality to magic; it simply isn't as big a deal.

It sucks the magic out of the magic.

 

[Hussar]

Are you aware of what you're doing here?

Batman is not extrahuman or superhuman. Batman is a superhero.

"Superhuman" and "superhero" are not the same thing. If you and others continue to use the words as synonyms, of course you're going to continue to misunderstand.

Umm, the dictionary would like to disagree with you:

from Superhero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A superhero is a type of stock character possessing "extraordinary or superhuman powers" and dedicated to protecting the public

Which is pretty much how the word is used in everyday English. Since when is a superhero not superhuman in some way?

----------------------

As far as KM's idea goes, I like it a lot, but, I think DannyA's reaction would be fairly common. Considering how much resistance there is to the idea that fighters don't have to be strictly mundane (as evinced by the reactions to books like Bo9S, for example) I don't think making a fighter even more like a wizard is going to fly.

Me? I like it. But, I can hear the gnashing of teeth already.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps if the creation of magic items was linked to a single feat (so it doesn't so adversely impact feat-starved classes) and appropriately high skill checks against appropriate craft checks as opposed to being an innate class feature.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Umm, the dictionary would like to disagree with you:

from Superhero - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Um, actually it doesn't. Note that it says "extraordinary or superhuman." Do you understand that "or" indicates that it's a choice, not an equivalent?

Batman is "extraordinary." Batman is not "superhuman." Batman is a superhero, because he is extraordinary in many respects. He is not a superhero because he is superhuman, and nor is he superhuman because he is a superhero. He's not extraordinary because he's superhuman, and he doesn't become superhuman just because he's extraordinary.

Which is pretty much how the word is used in everyday English.

No, it's not. "Superhuman" and "superhero" are not synonyms. Anyone using them as such is incorrect, and (as we're seeing here) that incorrect usage is leading to an incorrect -- flatly, factually incorrect -- conclusion.

Since when is a superhero not superhuman in some way?

Pretty much since the genre has existed, there have been superheroes who are not superhuman.