Campaign Standards: Are the characters heroes?

[Hairfoot]

I think we're talking about two types of heroism here. There's the mundane protagonist who becomes heroic through actions, and Negflar's "radiant, glowing big dang Hero with a capital H", whose heroism is shorthand for being extraordinary and supranormal. I want my PCs to be the former but not the latter.

Also, everything Mallus said in post #9.

EDIT: No, wait. Mallus is saying the opposite of what I agree with. 4E offers no support for non-super heroes.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

In what sense of the word, 'hero?' There are many. And any or all of them may appeal to any one player at a particular moment. No guarantees they'll be what you expect them to be at the time you expect them to be it.

Ya can't even guarantee they'll be the protagonists (that sense of the word hero.) That would be bad GMing if it happened. But it does happen.

How's about some recent examples from campaigns I'm involved in. (tune out now unless you really want to read about my games. There's nothing new, just illustrations of the above statement.)

My Dwarves campaign: the PCs are national heroes. They've earned the title. Done many things to benefit the Dwarven Kingdom. They are patriotic, fervant, willing to commit mass genocide. They think themselves heroes.

My (brand new) Champions game: we have a character who conducts bizarre and painful experiments on people. A thief who likes to cut people. An alien/human hybrid that has disdain for all humanity. A total nut case who occasionally snaps and casually commits murder. A big hulking brute who likes to smash things and has set up a smuggling operation. Now none of the PLAYERS think these guys are heroes. But the mad scientist thinks he is hero of science. The alien hybrid thinks he is better than mere humans, doesn't matter what he does to them, they're just ants. The slashy thief is far too cynical to think he's a hero, but he thinks he's likeable. The psycho tries to be a decent person but there's that casually killing thing (and a raft of other psychosis.) And the big brute/smuggler happens to be a used car salesman, so we know he's evil. But they'll all step up to battle threats to their country, because that's what they're paid for.

The Age of Worms game I'm playing in. My character is morally inflexible, pushy and prone to violence. She says it's all part of being warrior caste and thus part of personal dharma. She considers herself to be very much a hero.

Ya know I've even heard of games where the PCs are likeable, friendly, helpful, think first and don't engage in wholesale slaughter at the drop of a hat. May see one one day.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I dunno, I find from my exposure that 4e goes even further (than 3e) to push the idea that PCs must be and can only be heroic heroes, and actively pushes only that style of game by the available options and rules. That's why 4e doesn't have playable githyanki, because they're generally evil, and evil things can only be monsters, and monsters cannot be PCs.

It does. They're in the Monster Manual, along with drow, orcs and gnomes. In fact 4e's githyanki are more playable than 3e's which have a +2LA so you can't play one at level 1 or 2.

4e has tieflings in the PHB, Satanic warlocks and non-good paladins.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In terms of what the xp awards encourage the PCs to do, in OD&D and 1e they're mostly thieves with a side order of killer. In 2e, 3e and 4e, PCs are just killers - no xp for gold. That looks like a moral slide to me, though not from a terrifically high starting point.

 

[Mallus]

EDIT: No, wait. Mallus is saying the opposite of what I agree with. 4E offers no support for non-super heroes.

I was saying there's nothing about 4e that pushes players toward playing a hero over a villain (the OP was talking good guys vs. bad guys, not mundane vs. super).

But as for your point... I'll grant you this: everyone in 4e has a little bit of the Batman in them. I can't help but think it's a good thing.

 

[Jack7]

but from my readings, I still get the idea that players are supposed to be heroes.

Now you've gone and done it...

 

[Chris Knapp]

In terms of what the xp awards encourage the PCs to do, in OD&D and 1e they're mostly thieves with a side order of killer. In 2e, 3e and 4e, PCs are just killers - no xp for gold. That looks like a moral slide to me, though not from a terrifically high starting point.

4E (and probably 3E too) also seems to emphasize story rewards in the form of goal XP. So I guess that makes them either killer heroes (as they are doing what needs to be done) or they are killer lemmings (riding down the plot rail road.)

 

[pogre]

IMC the PCs as Heroes make for the most satisfying campaigns. There have been some memorable anti-heroes as PCs too, so it's not a rule for us.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Whether they're heroes or not is purely up to them. At the start of the game, I default to "you're adventurers seeking fortune and glory," which is reinforced by the XP for GP approach. Beyond that, though, I don't influence the players towards or away from heroism. (And if they players decided to focus on altruism rather than fortune and glory, I'd adjust the way I handled XP to compensate, or just have their altruism rewarded in unexpected material ways.)

 

[Rechan]

I have seen it argued here that actually 4e is very Good vs. Evil. There's no Evil powers out there. Even the Metallic dragons are no longer Good, so you can justifyibly slay them. I don't buy into that argument, however.

I enjoy non-HERO campaigns. I've ran a private eye campaign, as well as traveling gypsy con artists. In the former there was an evil character. I'd enjoy mercenary games, or thieves guild games, or - you get the idea.

However, if I'm going to run a game with Heroes, then by god they're going to be HEROES, and they are going to save the day. Right now, I'm running a campaign where the world is going down the drain all over the place, and the PCs are pretty much hope. I spelled this out at the beginning.