Qualities of a Hero

[Henry]

Patman, can you think of a fictional hero who does NOT sacrifice something as part of his qualifications for heroism? I want to see if I'm on the same page here, or if we're talking about two different qualities. Even Superman sacrifices many things from his life to be a hero.

 

[Janx]

I think some folks are misusing some terms here.


Rescuing a child from a fire is "heroic"
the rescuer did not SACRIFICE anything to do so
the rescuer did RISK his life in doing so

See the difference?

Now in the big picture, a full time hero may sacrifice things in their life to continue their work. Such as sacrificing a private life, by spending every waking hour rescuing children from fires.

Now the term heroic seems to also be confused. Saying superman or a firefighter isn't heroic, because it's their job to rescue children from fires would be extreme.

I would assume that a heroic act constitutes saving someone's life or helping them in an extraordinary way.

Helping someone fill out their income tax = not heroic (no risk, and not extraordinary)
rescuing kid from fire = heroic (high risk)
pulling someone from a wreck and giving CPR = heroic (minimal risk and extraordinary)

Now maybe there's levels of being a hero. Perhaps you're only a hero to one person. But that's the way it is.

Janx

 

[Henry]

I think some folks are misusing some terms here.


Rescuing a child from a fire is "heroic"
the rescuer did not SACRIFICE anything to do so
the rescuer did RISK his life in doing so

Two points:

I look at it that this person sacrificed (gave up) their safety to do that act. That qualifies, and in fact, sacrifice of something as important as life or limb does qualify.

Even then, I also put a difference between "heroic" and "a hero." One can act heroically without being a hero. Witness the anti-hero who saves a child from a fire because that child is worth a bounty. (Heck, D&D adventurers often qualify in this example!) He did a heroic action, but I wouldn't call him a hero if he solely did it for the pay. Han Solo resucing the Princess because she's rich was not heroic, but it set him up to make a choice later to be heroic (saving Luke's butt at the Death Star at the cost of his future freedom).

Spider-man was not heroic back when he refused to act without getting paid. Later he sacrifices health, safety, and often a social life to be a protector because "with great power comes" yadda yadda.

 

[Andor]

I don't believe you can. Or at least, there are no historical figures whom I can think of that embody these qualities consistently. Some may exhibit these traits at some points, but none do so all of the time.

When on Earth did impossible degrees of perfection become the test of herodom? No one expects or can achive 100% perfection. That does not mean one cannot strive for perfection. It does not mean someone cannot act heroically. It does not mean one cannot keep ideals in mind at all times, even if one cannot always achieve them. A moment of weakness does not make a heroic life worthless. A single good act does not redeem a life of evil. (Anakin Skywalker aside....)

A hero is not a god. For that matter outside of monotheism, no one expected the degree of perfection you describe from their gods either. Sheesh, you make it sound like your heros could lose their paladinhood for failing to return an extra 3 cents worth of change at McDonalds.

 

[RigaMortus]

Pulling children out of a burning house is an ordinary thing?

The fact that the building is burning is what makes the situation extrordinary...

 

[RigaMortus]

As far as "sacrifice"... This is how I see it...

I beleive you can still be considered a hero even if you've never had to make any kind of sacrifice. However, when confronted with a sacrifice, the hero would make that sacrifice in order to do the right thing. An anti-hero would still try and do the right thing, just try to avoid the sacrifice. I think that is the difference.

 

[Particle_Man]

Superman is always willing to risk his life, and he is vulnerable to kryptonite (green or otherwise), magic, 5th dimensional imps, power drainers (the parasite, anyone with red sunlight duplicators), stronger foes (Doomsday, Mageddon (he needed batman to pull him out of that one - Morrison's run on JLA)), etc. That doesn't count the threats to his friends and family, or to his reputation (the 60's *choke* *sniff* soap opera silly stories). It *never* stopped him from trying to save others. Sounds pretty heroic to me.

My version of hero is "going above and beyond the call of duty". Since Superman is not officially a cop or anything, he has no duty beyond that of an American Citizen (well, a reporter has some duties, so he has those). Thus any time he does anything beyond what is required of an American Citizen (or reporter) he is being heroic, and if he is heroic consistently, then he is a hero. Since he also happens to have super-powers, he is called a Super-Hero.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

I must admit that I haven't seen the movies in years, but I do read the occasional comic.

I didn't know that superman had lost his powers for an eight year span and continued to be as good. Because SM had his inability to risk and sacrifice taken away, he therefore began to risk and sacrifice something - His life for a noble cause. This does then make him a hero.

I change my viewpoint on superman. It is possible to win an internet debate!

I don't change my viewpoint on what a hero is, however.


Sacrifice doesn't mean giving up life. I don't expect my heroes to be dripping in angst or suchlike. To put this in D+D terms, the players are not truly heroes until risk and the possibility of self-sacrifice is a credible threat. An evil necromancer isn't a credible threat unless he can threaten the characters lives or emotional stability in some way. If a level 20 paladin wipes out a level 5 necromancer who is plaguing a village, it's not a heroic act. It's a good one. There is only a very, very small amount to non-existant amount of risk and potential for sacrifice involved.

Now, if a level 1 paladin fights, knowing a high chance of pain and suffering might result for him but sees his act as a worthy one regardless and goes about it anyway he is a hero. He is willing to self-sacrifice. His act is both good and heroic.

A hero can only be a hero in adverse circumstances, not good ones. Rescuing a child from a burning building is a heroic act for a normal person, granting him the status of hero. But it does not grant Superman the status of hero, because for him it wasn't an adverse circumstance - it was something one-hundred-percent within his ability to do with no risk.

 

[Patman21967]

OK..I just cannot keep it in any longer, and I apologize if I offend anyone, that is not my intention. And mods, if you need to black this out, I understand. Henry, in response to you errr....response, and those that brought up Jesus. First off, I am religious, and raised Catholic, but was presented with this argument, and find it hard to refute.

EDIT - Religious Discussion Example removed.

 

[WizarDru]

Religious discussion removed. -Henry

Have you ever seen the Babylon 5 Episode "Passing through Gethsemane"? Religion aside, it's an interesting question (and quite possibly some of Brad Dourif's finest acting). I think we probably shouldn't go much further down this line of thought, however.