Ordinary vs. Extraordinary - the origins of characters

[Agamon]

I like to play PCs that are special, but don't think they are or don't to want to acknowledge it. It's fun to play that sort of duality.

 

[S'mon]

Almost all heroes are both ordinary and extraordinary. It's virtually impossible to find a hero story that doesn't deal with some combination of the heroes ordinary nature and ordinary challenges and the heroes extraordinary nature and extraordinary abilities. This is inherent to the whole concept of heroic ethics that resonates so powerfully with people. If the hero is merely extraordinary, then the hero is not someone that can be related to your present position. A purely extraordinary hero is too remote to be idolized and his problems (if he has any) are too alien to see in them solutions to your own difficulties. A purely ordinary hero is not worthy of emulation and does not inspire the audience to strive for a more heroic mode of living their own life.

Well said. "You must spread some XP around..." *sigh*

 

[rogueattorney]

I prefer to play/run characters who begin as ordinary in every respect except for their extraordinary desire and determination to do something or become something extraordinary.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

It's interesting to see how these have changed throughout history: what makes a hero?

Is it your origins? Some stories believe it is something bred in the bones, something inherent to an individual. The very earliest heroes were gods and the children of gods; Hercules, Susano'o, Krishna.

But that's old storytelling. Post-modernism has subverted traditional heroic construction and we no longer favour divine provenance (or, for that matter, prophecy, fate, destiny and other related structures).

Today we see a lot more self-built heroes (especially with the secularisation of literature): characters who have made themselves strong, tough, skilled through their own efforts rather than the blessings of the gods or what-have-you. Contemporary and futuristic heroes are almost all atheists, in practice if not belief. They may have superhuman reflexes and reactions but this is always 'natural' or, at most, created by Man/Technology. These are characters that are The Best Soldiers, The Smartest Hackers, The Most Persistent Cops. They have extraordinary capabilities, but they are at heart "ordinary" people who haven't been chosen or selected by a god or by destiny. Batman, for all his gadgets and intelligence, is an ordinary person. He was never destined or chosen or given a special gift.

People love a rags to riches story. The humble farmer grows up to become a hero but maintains his memory of his peaceful farm or family. We like seeing "heroes" acting like "normal people." That's the rub, isn't it, though? They're not normal people - they're heroes. Heroes are always a little off-kilter, a little out-of-step with the rest of the world. After all, you have to be outside the world to change it - and to challenge others who would change the world for their own ends. Heroes are a kind of autogyro, correcting the equilibrium whenever some mad king or crazed scientist attempts to disrupt it. After all, that's where the word "hero" comes from: to protect or defend.

That's part of why heroes were all divine or otherworldly in origin: not just as an explanation of their power, but also to allow them to reshape the world on their own terms, to fight and defeat enemies in an acceptable manner. When a normal person kills someone, it's murder; when a hero kills someone, it's justice.

So with secularisation has come alternative means of distancing our heroes: traumas (psychological problems), dark secrets, physical alterations (the Cyborg). Again, it serves a dual purpose - justifying our hero's actions while marking him out from the rest of the herd. You can see this in almost any movie and especially in any book or RPG - the protagonist is never quite the same as the others. He's always suffered in some way that makes him separate from the rest of the world.

So extraordinary and ordinary are more then just "is he special." I think it's rooted far more in a different question: "Is he destined?" Is he a self-made hero or did he never have a choice in the first place?

 

[Alzrius]

I also prefer the ordinary person who rises up to face extraordinary circumstances. I'd say more, but ProfessorCirno already did a great job explaining why I find that appealing.

Of course, this is coming from the guy who let his Pathfinder group generate characters with a 25-point buy, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Ycore Rixle]

Virtually every mythic hero story begins in the same way.

1) The hero possesses abilities which are unrecognized or unfulfilled, however, the basic core of goodness, courage, and honor are made known to the audience.
2) The hero faces some extraordinary difficulty.
3) The hero finds the means to overcome this difficulty.

I believe the fundamental question is flawed.

Almost all heroes are both ordinary and extraordinary.
<snip>

To me, the real question is not, "Is the hero ordinary or extraordinary", but, "Where in the hero journey do you begin the game?" The D&D model generally assumes that you begin the game at the very beginning of the hero journey.

<snip>

... on the whole I like to start as seemingly ordinary individuals with extraordinary destinies. Now, whether the ordinariness is a skin deep covering of something extraordinary, or whether it lies hidden at the heart of someone superficially extraordinary is for me a more interesting question.

Great post. I think the fact that D&D started at the beginning of the hero's journey and went all the way to the extraordinary destiny was one of its strokes of genius.

I voted "Ordinary people facing extraordinary circumstances" because it was the option that came closest to describing this. The hero is transformed by the journey. He starts ordinary, but through his journey, which is an expression of his will among other things, he is transformed into something extraordinary.

This is one of my problems with Exalted. It is alleviated to a large extent by the flaws and limit breaks, but still, the nature of the Exaltation irks me. Oh, hey dude, you're a Solar, here's some powerz. And then the journey's over, and you go do awesomeness. It makes humanity and the human condition in that setting a little irrelevant for me (though the Solars still have human flaws, but that just makes humanity seem redundant to me...).

 

[Garthanos]

4E seems to be built on the idea that you must be "above the curve" of everyone else (there's something that makes you stand out from the commoner on the sidewalk) and does not seem to support the "ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances" model very well at all.

Heh... 4e just assumes like the character you mentioned ... you have the script writers on your side... at some level you are one of those script writers.
And I can build and play a Joxer (seemingly incompetent irritating and very lucky fighter) and i can build a non-combat princess who screams and acts like bait and hides behind her allies inspiring there protection etc in the middle of a battle and virtually never makes an attack roll ... yet... they both contribute their heroic luck to resolving the extraordinary circumstances very well... much like movie characters ... they dont die in scene one either.

EDIT: OK they could die in scene one but its now more under control instead a fluke of a die roll.

 

[Kzach]

I use whatever feels right for the game and the character.

For instance, if the game was assuming humble beginnings, I wouldn't play my cleric who is accompanied by an angel (Spirit Talker feat) and who speaks Supernal at 1st-level (Dragon Coast Benefit Background).

 

[LostSoul]

Extraordinary or ordinary?

It depends on the setting for the game.

Virtually every mythic hero story begins in the same way.

1) The hero possesses abilities which are unrecognized or unfulfilled, however, the basic core of goodness, courage, and honor are made known to the audience.
2) The hero faces some extraordinary difficulty.
3) The hero finds the means to overcome this difficulty.

I think that if you got rid of "goodness, courage, and honor", I think it could work for nearly every protagonist in any story.

The first character I thought of was Sam Spade from The Maltese Falcon. Though he's not particularly good, and only slightly honourable. "When a man's partner is killed, he's supposed to do something about it. It doesn't make any difference what you thought of him. He was your partner and you're supposed to do something about it."