I wish D&D could have been more heroic

[zouron]

Yeah edena you are right my current character is very tragic, she is absed on the 2e complete elven handbook that described how there was one kind of elves and then the drow fell, it is exactly that I liked to do my personal portrait of, very interesting take.

(ohhh maena told me to remind you that you should remember I play paladin like characters like treiss tatonia (whom BTW recently won a contest which he dedicated to his leader of the alliance, edena ;-) ))

As for norse philosophy, I guess I could post it on the board without it being taken religiously, since the norse religion seldom is considered a religion today (man it sucks to worship something others consider a relic of the past hehe ohh well belief isn't a choice so what can one do). But even though I can I wouldn't part of the don't wanna discuss it with some who disagree with my view (afterall we are all entitled to our own view of the world and religion) and secondly cause I don't feel it is appropiate.

But the part I think you specifically think of was the eye of an eye, tooth for a tooth, and as you already explained people are not automatically ensured a place in the Valhalla, just because they are believers and all that.

And edena you have no idea how glad I am to hear from you every time I do, you have and always will be one of the best friends I had. THEREFOR don't dare go away again without giving me and the rest of us a way to keep in touch ;-)

 

[Numion]

I'd rather survive than die heroically. I can imagine it being fun to go down in a blaze of glory, but then you're back to square one in the next session. New character etc..

I enjoy looting, gaining exp and roleplaying. As overly heroic actions more often than not bring quick halt to the first two on that list, I don't bother being too heroic.

A couple of sessions ago my 8th cleric encountered an Ogre Magi, Illithid and a Sphinx. We were surprised, and half of us were stunned by the mind blast. I wasn't. One cleric and a rogue against those.. and the rogue was in another room. I knew that if I could drop the illithid in one round I might save the the situation. I chose not to - I ran like hell. Told the rogue to run too. It would've been heroic to try to rescue the others, by going against the three baddies alone. It was also a possible death for me (rogue would've been stunned with his low Will save), and a possible TPK too. Reset campaign. A little too big price on heroics, don't ya think?

 

[Psion]

<i></i>

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

To Zouron

Hey there, Zouron, my friend!

I have some replies to your post.

Posted by Zouron:

Yeah edena you are right my current character is very tragic, she is absed on the 2e complete elven handbook that described how there was one kind of elves and then the drow fell, it is exactly that I liked to do my personal portrait of, very interesting take.

Comment

I remember your leader of the Magocracy, in the IR. His was a tragic tale also, if you think about it. A contrast to the often humorous uproar being engaged in by some of the other characters.

Posted

(ohhh maena told me to remind you that you should remember I play paladin like characters like treiss tatonia (whom BTW recently won a contest which he dedicated to his leader of the alliance, edena ;-) ))

Comment

(very solemn look of appreciation)

Thank you, Zouron. I really do appreciate this. I put a lot of time in on the Alliance, and to hear that you my friend have dedicated a victory to it, is really nice. Thanks for the warm gesture, the kind hearted gesture, the gesture of a friend. (big thumbs up.)
I suppose (sighs) that if I talked about the Alliance here, on ENWorld (Edena's doing again, folks) that it might start an uproar even here. The Alliance was awfully controversial. To this day, I do not understand why.
I mean, most people would band together for self protection, if a bunch of powerful and organized undead started running around killing people, and taking their souls back to their base to raise as new undead. But, that's just my thinking on the matter ...

Posted

As for norse philosophy, I guess I could post it on the board without it being taken religiously, since the norse religion seldom is considered a religion today (man it sucks to worship something others consider a relic of the past hehe ohh well belief isn't a choice so what can one do).

Comment

Since you have publicly stated here that you worship the Norse, I can say so without violating your privacy.
And I will say this: I will NOT discuss the Norse Religion on ENWorld, because the rules DO prohibit religious discussions, and the Norse Religion is your religion, and you are entitled to the courtesy and respect to your religion that everyone else receives for theirs.
Why would I be discourteous and disrespectful to others on this board, much less a friend like you, Zouron? (I have made mistakes, and been discourteous, and I'm not boasting about that, either.)
Indeed, I hope the moderators realize this, and disallow discussion of the Norse Religion on this boards. For it is a major religion in Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and perhaps other places.

Posted

But even though I can I wouldn't part of the don't wanna discuss it with some who disagree with my view (afterall we are all entitled to our own view of the world and religion) and secondly cause I don't feel it is appropiate.

Comment

Agreed. I am sorry that I asked you to discuss this matter. I was out of line. Accept my apologies, if you would.

Posted

But the part I think you specifically think of was the eye of an eye, tooth for a tooth, and as you already explained people are not automatically ensured a place in the Valhalla, just because they are believers and all that.

Comment

I will discuss this in e-mail with you. Better to do so, since this is about religion and not appropriate here.

Posted

And edena you have no idea how glad I am to hear from you every time I do, you have and always will be one of the best friends I had. THEREFOR don't dare go away again without giving me and the rest of us a way to keep in touch ;-)

Comment

You do realize that you and my other friends on these boards are the biggest reason I come here, don't you?
I have few friends. It is REALLY good to come to the one place where most of them are, and to have people who like me to talk to.
It's good to have you, Zouron. And all of you, guys (and good to have you, Zelda.)

I had no choice about leaving.
I lost all connection to the Internet. Indeed, the entire computer room had to be set back up from scratch when I returned a few days ago.
There was a severe crisis here at home, brought on by alcoholism (not mine ... I do not drink.)
Even now, my position online is tentative, and I may have to go offline again. I hope not, but things are just not so good. My regrets.

 

[Tokiwong]

I think heroism just boils down to individual taste, we all have our different views on what a hero does and does not do. Or what the cost should be, and have different world-views that we are basing our definition upon, so I guess Heroism and being Heroic is subjective.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I think, Tokiwong, that that statement reflects the true reality of heroism.
It is subjective. I totally agree with you.

I guess I was merely referring to my version of heroism.

In the first edition version of Oriental Adventures, honor was extraordinarily important. Acting in a honorable fashion was heroic in itself, and great honor was synonomous with great heroism.
And acting dishonorably, was very wrong. (It said in the book, that if your honor score dropped below 0, it was all over. Just over. You might as well tear up the character sheet and start over.)

So yeah, my version of heroism is just that: simply my take on it.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Enjoying the discussion. I'd like to introduce some questions for debate, since most of my actual opinions have already been covered and discussed by others.

1) What is the opposite of heroism?

2) Can evil characters/NPCs be heroic?

3) Why is heroism something to desire in a campaign?

4) Can heroism be taken too far?


Other points for consideration:

1) In a campaign with no risk of permenant death, perhaps the penalty for failure lies in the unability of the character to prevent greater tragedy. So you died (and was later raised), but did not stop the goblin army. The goblins then sacked and burned your home town, sticking the thousands of inhabitants on pikes. Your penalty was not your own death, but your mission's failure. I think dramatic failures like this can shape the character in a very significant way.

2) Enemies can be raised too, if they have followers remaining. For some reason, players don't think of this very often, and neither do DMs. Killing the enemies might not be the solution they need. Sometimes the heroic thing to do does not involve prowess in battle, but the courage to take a more subtle approach and turn an evil situation into a good one. Ghandi, Buddha, and Jesus were heroes in this sense.

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: Replies to replies

Heroism comes in different guises.
If your party is about to butcher an innocent town, and your paladin stands against the party, is it heroism or stupidity?
If your character is darkly evil, and takes great risks to kill the famed paladin, is that heroic or simply villainous?
If valor in battle is considered heroic, but your character is a pacifist, and willing to endure being a social outcast and hated for his views, is that heroism?
If your character is a thief, who steals from a great and noble lady, then repents and openly gives the goods back, risking imprisonment and death, is that heroic? (Maybe, your thief is in love with her? Maybe, he hopes she will return the love?)
What about a female character (played by a female player) in a world that is totally sexist, where an armed female is arrested and enslaved on the spot?

Or, how about a character willing to negotiate a peace treaty with the illithid, going to a public conference to talk to them?
Or, an elf, going to the same conference to talk about peace with the drow?
Or, a drow who worships Lolth, who honestly believes all elves would benefit by worshipping Lolth (after all, did she not make the drow strong?), and wishes to bring empowerment and strength to the elves, as allies under the mighty banner of the Demon Queen of Spiders? And this elf, goes to Evermeet to argue her case before Queen Amlaruil.

No, heroism is not necessarily about rushing into combat with a sword, and taking on 20 assorted bad guys. That is the cliche.

So I don't really get your point - if you view Heroism as exemplified by those situations you mentioned, than HOW exactly does D&D not foster those situations?

There's NOTHING about the rules of 3E that stops those situations from occuring.

 

[Tokiwong]

Enjoying the discussion. I'd like to introduce some questions for debate, since most of my actual opinions have already been covered and discussed by others.

1) What is the opposite of heroism?

2) Can evil characters/NPCs be heroic?

3) Why is heroism something to desire in a campaign?

4) Can heroism be taken too far?

Well to your first point that would be villainy I suppose, though that can meet different things as well. I don't think I can think of a word to qualify as the exact opposite of that.

But to your second question, I think evil characters can be heroic. Think of it as a curltural paradigm, the drow are an evil society, but even they have heroes. Someone that espouses their beleifs in a big way, they have their stries about the Great Drow, and I am sure wish to be like them, and to them they are their heroes. Besides the fact that their heroes may do horrible things to other people, and their own kind, they still espouse virtues that their culture/society as a whole admires.

In the end many villains are heroes, to others who share their world view, the greatest villains in fact define the archetypal hero. Often playing as his foil, the hero is often defined by the villain, who in his way is a hero unto himself, and others that support him.

For your third question, I think heroism is often a positive aspect because many games are played larger then life. vanquishing hordes of evil foes, and doing daring and often insane acts all in the name of fun, adventure, good, or what have you. We all want to be heroes in form or another, and be larger then life heroes that we see on screen. Now this does not apply to every game, but in typical D&D I would wager it is the norm.

As for your last question, heroism like any other trait can go too far. There is a thin-line between heroics and stupidity. And I will leave that at that.

Other points for consideration:

1) In a campaign with no risk of permenant death, perhaps the penalty for failure lies in the unability of the character to prevent greater tragedy. So you died (and was later raised), but did not stop the goblin army. The goblins then sacked and burned your home town, sticking the thousands of inhabitants on pikes. Your penalty was not your own death, but your mission's failure. I think dramatic failures like this can shape the character in a very significant way.

2) Enemies can be raised too, if they have followers remaining. For some reason, players don't think of this very often, and neither do DMs. Killing the enemies might not be the solution they need. Sometimes the heroic thing to do does not involve prowess in battle, but the courage to take a more subtle approach and turn an evil situation into a good one. Ghandi, Buddha, and Jesus were heroes in this sense.

I like both of these points and do use them in my own games. There should always be a price, I think, and a realistic world would continue without the players screwing things up as they do. Nothing much to add, but I think they are both great points.

 

[Desdichado]

Edena: Plymouth, good heavens! I live in Canton, literally not half a block away from Plymouth (just barely south of Joy Road!) In fact, my son goes to school across the street in Plymouth, at Fiegel Elementary.

My references to drugs wasn't a reference to such at all, merely the fact that as D&D is probably the most over the top heroic game in print, the fact that you want it to be more heroic shows an unexplainable lack of perception. Tongue in cheek, of course. Naturally, I know the dangers of drugs; in fact, I don't even drink or smoke. However, since my topic had nothing to do with that, I hardly think it fair to point the discussion that direction.

And, since you seem to agree with me that D&D is one of the most heroic games in print, I'm afraid I'm somewhat losing you in terms of what you're trying to say. If it's players that you've had, which you do mention, then the game really doesn't matter too much, and saying the you wish D&D itself were more heroic is somewhat of a misleading title for the thread.

If, on the other hand, you're saying that subtle (or not so subtle) design decisiong, such as the very tangible rewards you get from killing something and taking it's stuff is so ingrained in D&D in both culture and mechanics, then that's at least is a point that could be made. In fact, I happen to agree with that; I typically prefer to tweak the rules in a number of ways, and one side effect of that is that I don't have to award experience, and I can arbitrarily level characters when I feel like it. Then again, the definition of heroics can vary from person to person. Having a game that encourages things that would be heroic in real life because they are relatively easy to do in game isn't really heroic, after all, because the risk you (your character) is taking is significantly lessened.