'Heroic' games and the setting of tone in games

[Shemeska]

After a comment on the thread about what PrCs don't work well within a party, I had a question about one idea therein.

The idea was about not allowing PrCs that had a PC do evil acts or simply be evil as a requirement, and that not fitting within the context of a so-called 'Heroic' game.

What does that actually mean to those of you that go that route? Do any of you guys as a DM actively mold the tone of their campaign to exclude anything except archetypal 'good' characters, mold the plots and scenarios open to the PCs to only include fighting evil, or otherwise emphasis a role as 'heroes' for the PCs? How do you go about enforcing that tone, and what benefits and/or problems has this ever caused?

For myself, I don't set an overall tone for a campaign outside of perhaps being -DARK-, but I don't specify what the PCs can be or how they'll react to that. I take what PC ideas the players present to me and then I present them with multiple plots that make sense based on who they are and where within the game world they happen to be. I guess it just seems a bit foreign to me to emphasize 'heroic' rather than 'realistic' in a game. The PCs are in a complex world that has obvious blacks and whites, but it's all floating in a gray ocean in which being a 'hero' isn't always as clearcut as superman in a superhero game. You've got the Blood War going on to starkly contrast with the Good of the upper planes, but Good isn't monolithic either. The Archons and Eladrin see one another as repugnant on the Law/Chaos axis but as beings of Good they won't butcher one another like the fiends. Then you've got raw Law and Chaos as well, and everything in between. Where does a 'hero' fit in so perfectly in there as a PC?

The BBEG frequently might not be evil, and frequently might not even be wrong rather than simply opposed by another person or group, with the PCs on one side or the other. The PCs might happen to work with fiends just as often as they end up fighting them. Everything depends on what they seek out and what is there within a dynamic, very deep game world they're set within rather than a rose colored world of heros doing heroic things.

For instance this past week I had one PC getting into a serious argument with a number of good aligned faiths and some evil clerics as well. Essentially the PC and his associated clergy was effectively doing too much to help the poor in a certain area of the Hive Ward in Sigil, and by extension was ruining business for some people and making other people look terrible by comparison. He had more conflict with some of the 'good' faiths in the end than the evil ones. The PC was being very heroic in a sense, and the same game session he and the other PCs accepted a job from what might have been a risen Abyssal Lord seeking to have a specific Nalfeshne abducted alive from the 400th layer of the Abyss, for a very -very- grisly fate.

Some of the PCs are good, some of them are evil, most of them are neutral. Alignment has less to do with them being together than does opportunity, money, friendship, and shared goals. I won't force heroism upon the party if they don't go out of their way to seize that role. They could go white hat if they wanted, and I'd also allow them to descend into utter depravity if they so wished (heck, one of the PCs is half yugoloth).

Perhaps it's a combination of how I run, what the players want, and frankly the setting. 3e Planescape, and Planescape and planar games in general, seem to be very morphic on alignment and can take and support all sorts. Other settings might, by their very nature just support PCs being heros right from the start. Dragonlance comes to mind whereas say Shadowrun just wouldn't.

But back to the overall question: Do you encourage a specific tone to your campaigns to emphasize good, or even go so far as to restrict anything outside of a rubric of good and heroism? How do you do it, and why? Has it ever conflicted with what the players wanted? Has it ever seemed to not quite fit within the game world? I'm curious.

 

[Clueless]

In our case a lot of it's setting. Planescape - the way you run it - doesn't support heros specifically. However, if you ran Dragonlance? Or an actual superhero's game? Or Firefly? Heck yes - heros all over the place.

For us a lot of it is group style and setting style - we're fine without the directionalizing because we all fall into it naturally.

In the other direction, I've seen groups where a heroic ideal had to be brought up and enforced because all but one player was on the same page about being a hero. (In a DC JLA game at that - where the genre seriously encourages that.)

You've seen me when I run Shadowrun - I do something simular in setting a restriction on character style/mentality. No splatter punk for my games, or my NPCs play splatter right back. Urban heros preferred, or just an average joe trying to make a buck at worse.

 

[DonTadow]

After a comment on the thread about what PrCs don't work well within a party, I had a question about one idea therein.

The idea was about not allowing PrCs that had a PC do evil acts or simply be evil as a requirement, and that not fitting within the context of a so-called 'Heroic' game.

What does that actually mean to those of you that go that route? Do any of you guys as a DM actively mold the tone of their campaign to exclude anything except archetypal 'good' characters, mold the plots and scenarios open to the PCs to only include fighting evil, or otherwise emphasis a role as 'heroes' for the PCs? How do you go about enforcing that tone, and what benefits and/or problems has this ever caused?

For myself, I don't set an overall tone for a campaign outside of perhaps being -DARK-, but I don't specify what the PCs can be or how they'll react to that. I take what PC ideas the players present to me and then I present them with multiple plots that make sense based on who they are and where within the game world they happen to be. I guess it just seems a bit foreign to me to emphasize 'heroic' rather than 'realistic' in a game. The PCs are in a complex world that has obvious blacks and whites, but it's all floating in a gray ocean in which being a 'hero' isn't always as clearcut as superman in a superhero game. You've got the Blood War going on to starkly contrast with the Good of the upper planes, but Good isn't monolithic either. The Archons and Eladrin see one another as repugnant on the Law/Chaos axis but as beings of Good they won't butcher one another like the fiends. Then you've got raw Law and Chaos as well, and everything in between. Where does a 'hero' fit in so perfectly in there as a PC?

The BBEG frequently might not be evil, and frequently might not even be wrong rather than simply opposed by another person or group, with the PCs on one side or the other. The PCs might happen to work with fiends just as often as they end up fighting them. Everything depends on what they seek out and what is there within a dynamic, very deep game world they're set within rather than a rose colored world of heros doing heroic things.

For instance this past week I had one PC getting into a serious argument with a number of good aligned faiths and some evil clerics as well. Essentially the PC and his associated clergy was effectively doing too much to help the poor in a certain area of the Hive Ward in Sigil, and by extension was ruining business for some people and making other people look terrible by comparison. He had more conflict with some of the 'good' faiths in the end than the evil ones. The PC was being very heroic in a sense, and the same game session he and the other PCs accepted a job from what might have been a risen Abyssal Lord seeking to have a specific Nalfeshne abducted alive from the 400th layer of the Abyss, for a very -very- grisly fate.

Some of the PCs are good, some of them are evil, most of them are neutral. Alignment has less to do with them being together than does opportunity, money, friendship, and shared goals. I won't force heroism upon the party if they don't go out of their way to seize that role. They could go white hat if they wanted, and I'd also allow them to descend into utter depravity if they so wished (heck, one of the PCs is half yugoloth).

But back to the overall question: Do you encourage a specific tone to your campaigns to emphasize good, or even go so far as to restrict anything outside of a rubric of good and heroism? How do you do it, and why? Has it ever conflicted with what the players wanted? Has it ever seemed to not quite fit within the game world? I'm curious.

Ironically I believe it is the opposite. I don't believe it is very realistic for a character whom commits evil acts engage in activities with characters attempting to do good. Now I mean inheritedly evil. If we were being realistic, once a person sees someone commiting an evil act, I am sure that they would stop befriending that character. Like souls usually hang out together, only in an unrealistic campaign will a baby eater join forces with a priest.

There are some things that are direly evil and some things that are good. The tone of my campaign is heroic (non-evil). The pcs are trying to save the world one adventure at a time. The party carries a neutral overtone to them. I am from the Joss Whedon school of good whereas it is never truly cut and dry. Most of the time my pcs dwell in the grey. Should they race towards the clocktower or save the village of Malamyr? I often throw delemmas like that at them to enforce the tone that doing good is not always easy.

However, dire evil is always quite clear. Destroying the world for selfish reasons, killing kids for fun, ressrecting evil gods. Good is hard to define but evil is always clear. IF nothing good comes of it (or you don't think anything is coming from it) then its evil.

To take your example, in my campaign the pcs have done evil unknowingly for an evil being thinking they were doing good. I don't consider that evil they were duped. However once they know they are doing evil and they continue, that's evil. Now if they have to do a little evil for a greater good, sometimes that happens. For instance if the evil being needs a child to sacrafice themselves so that the evil being does not come back, the pcs could figure out a way to do that and still remain good (or at least aren't considered evil).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I run a heroic game because that's what I like to DM. Those are the kinds of stories I like to help create. I don't particularly care for statting up good guys to get beaten down, or to adjudicate how many child sacrifices it might take to complete a pact with Orcus. I want to see Good trouncing Evil, so that's the game I run. I have no problem with others running other games, but that's what I enjoy running.

I enforce it by telling the players before the game starts that I'm going to be running a heroic game. Players who don't understand what this means can be taught. Players who decide to play against my wishes with regards to this are booted. Or if that's not feasible, I merely shut the game down and let another pick up the DMing reins.

Everything depends on what they seek out and what is there within a dynamic, very deep game world they're set within rather than a rose colored world of heros doing heroic things.

It should be noted that one can run a heroic campaign in a very deep world as well. The fact that the PCs are "heroes" doesn't make the game world "a rose colored world" unless the DM makes it so. I, personally, do not. I have oppressive Lawful Good churches and prostitutes and drug abuse and rape etc. etc. The point of a heroic campaign is that the PCs will oppose these things, rather than support them. That the PCs will, at heart, be good people, people who will fight for their convictions. The world can be as dark as dark gets. The PCs, on the other hand, will not be.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I brought up the heroic game.

Quite honestly, I have to admit that I don't know how to run a heroic game. I keep falling into the trap of moral ambiguity and grays. But, I'm trying. Why? Because its different. Because I like trying out a little variety. Even if you only like dark campaigns, too much of a good thing can make it seem bland eventually.

There are many kinds of games. There's swashbuckling, heroic, grim & gritty, and more just in the realm of fantasy. It can be fun to explore the various aspects of these.

What makes a game heroic to me? To me, the PCs are heroes, a cut above the rest, in terms of ability and strength of character. They don't usually fall into the traps of moral lowground, and when they do it is a big thing in the campaign, and a large regret on their part. One that they must atone for, probably through quests. A hero need not always win, but a hero should always strive toward victory, even in the face of adversity, or fight losing causes because it is the right thing to do.

Like I said, though, I'm still struggling on how to pull this off. Especially with a Player who can't tell the difference between right and wrong (yes, a Player). I'll keep on truckin', though.

 

[LostSoul]

I made a comment on the other thread. My point was something like, if you don't let your PCs be evil, can they really be good?

Should they race towards the clocktower or save the village of Malamyr? I often throw delemmas like that at them to enforce the tone that doing good is not always easy.

For example, let's take this situation (a nice one, by the way). If the PCs don't have the option of just walking away ("Let someone else deal with it"), do the PCs still have a choice between being heroes and just being regular people?

The choice in that example is a good one, because it forces the PCs to ask, "Which is more heroic? Saving the village of Malamyr or racing towards the clocktower?" (I'm assuming racing towards the clocktower is to stop some kind of evil deed.) But what if the choice was between saving the villagers and going to the clocktower because that's where the Silver Train has it's drop-off point, and there won't be many guards there, so we can grab it and be rich? Then the players have to choose between the heroic path and the selfish one.

And because the players have to pick between the two options - being heroic or selfish - does that choice allow the players to be more heroic than if the options were heroic deed A and heroic deed B?

If the only choices that the players can make are heroic ones, are they really heroic?

[I guess that would be the difference between simulationist (we want to play heroes) and narrativist (we want to struggle with the choice) play. I could be wrong about that.]

edit: There is also the choice between the amount of personal sacrifice you're willing to go through to be heroes, which I ignore above. So let's say that, in the example above, going to the clocktower would be heroic, but the PCs won't face death. Going to save the village will probably result in at least one PC death, but it is the more heroic action.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Do you encourage a specific tone to your campaigns to emphasize good, or even go so far as to restrict anything outside of a rubric of good and heroism? How do you do it, and why? Has it ever conflicted with what the players wanted? Has it ever seemed to not quite fit within the game world? I'm curious.

Interesting question.

Yeah, in fact I do set definate tones in my games.

Generally speaking my games tend to strong polarities within a setting. I tend to allow for a definate sense of heroic good ie. a LOTR vibe in which folks, generally the heroes themselves and select NPCs are truly heroic and noble. Sometimes they are heroes due to strong principles fostered by an ideal, other times personal tragedy or experience has turned them into heroes (these are the player's choice). Sometimes the greatest heroes are absolute in their dedication while others dwell in the moral grey zone where ordinary folks become extraordinary because they must in order to survive.

However, outside of the above heroic good, there is a dark underbelly to my games in which those who aren't the heroes are capable of suprising wickedness and corruption. There is the little evil of the human pick pocket, the greater evil of the human bandit chief and the horrid evil of the evil high priest. Duplicity, corruption, jockying for personal/political power, private vices of all types, meaness, petty cruelties....in other words the dirty reality of the world can be found anywhere heroes are not.

Evil is everpresent and threatening though ultimately evil turns upon itself which is why the heroes have a chance at all. Dark cabals meet in hidden lairs and seductive sorceresses summon otherworldly horrors to do their bidding. Shambling horrors crawl out from nameless tombs seeking the flesh of the living and there is nothing more evil than a fiend. Heroes may be the good guys but they know that the cost of their life of righteous violence may come with a price either the obvious, death or the more insidious devolution of their own character due to a cynical hardness that can develop within those who are forced to always deal in death.

Lights exist in the world ie. faith, loyalty, friendship, love, etc. and these things the darkness cannot abide and the heroes (PCs) know that these things can have real impact in my games. There may be no mechanics for the power of someone's faith in their god (outside a cleric or paladin) but I find ways to make such things matter. Making the right choices matters and evil has terrible consequences. There is always a cost but its a cost that many seem to be willing to pay.

All in all my game is, atmospherically speaking, a mixture of Sword and Sorcery (Conan/Elric) and High Fantasy (LOTR/Dragonlance) and a strong introspective quality where who the heroes are matters sometimes as much as their choices. Overall I support and encourage being heroically good or at least an interesting neutral with strong personal motivation for being heroic (for those who desire a slightly morally ambiguous character).

Forget evil. I ran a evil game biefly, but it stopped when the sacking of an elven village by the PCs (commanded by their employer) ended with putting elven women and babes to the sword by the mercenaries who were commanded to exterminate the survivors. One of my players exclaimed "hey this isn't fun" and I told them that my games are intense and they show the consequences of actions. He thought about it and decided he didn't want to play an evil game anymore. That game lasted 3 sessions. Everything has a cost.



Chris

 

[LostSoul]

Generally speaking my games...

How do the players interact with the setting? Do you restrict their choices through PC options (eg. You can only be heroic and good - evil characters are out of the game) or adventures themselves (eg. You can choose to save town A or town B, but you can't rob the orphanage)? If you do, do you feel that this lessens the amount of heroism of the characters?

 

[LostSoul]

...I told them that my games are intense and they show the consequences of actions. He thought about it and decided he didn't want to play an evil game anymore. That game lasted 3 sessions. Everything has a cost.

This sounds interesting. Do you think the game would have worked if you continued to present choices to the players between good and evil, and showing their consequences? For example, the player in question found evil distasteful. Perhaps he could have his character leave the mercenary band and strike out on his own, hunted as a deserter.

 

[Sundragon2012]

How do the players interact with the setting? Do you restrict their choices through PC options (eg. You can only be heroic and good - evil characters are out of the game) or adventures themselves (eg. You can choose to save town A or town B, but you can't rob the orphanage)? If you do, do you feel that this lessens the amount of heroism of the characters?

Well, I restrict alignment to some form of good or as I wrote, and the odd neutral character. However neutral is kind of rare as the adventures are usually not about mere gain as a prime motivator, though they do gain a lot of loot and toys as a secondary benefit.

My hooks tend to be those that involve heroic themes from the standard "save the village" to the love interest needing aid, a hero haunted by his past, missions for the church, stopping a corrupt noble who has made a pact with a fiend or an alliance with a dark faith, etc.

My players play there characters appropriately in regards to their alignment, allegiences, beliefs, principles, ect. and therefore will not rob an orphanage because it would be out of character to do so. That doens't mean that certain heroes don't do off color things like hire prostitutes, get drunk, get in a bar fights, be less than courteous all the time, curse the gods for their cruel fate, etc. but when the chips are down they are the good guys and they know it.

I like my heroes to be fully developed and that means that my players put humanity in their characters such as a cavalier who may not be affected by fear as a rule but feels fear and is able to shrug off its effects. Privately, the character may admit his fears to his lover or his priest but to nearly everyone else he is the golden hero. The lecherous warrior who seems a womanizing hardass on the outside hands some street urchins some gold coins because he is really a very good person of great compassion though he doesn't wear it on his sleeve. I like humanity in my heroes as it prevents things from being too cliche.



Chris