Qualities of a Hero

[Henry]

Patman:

I went ahead and removed part of your post. As good and thought-provoking a question as that was, ENWorld really isn't the appropriate venue to discuss it, because of our policy on adding political or religious debate to a discussion. I appreciate your understanding.

However, to frame the question a different way:

Let's say you have a normal, healthy person (we'll call him generic hero), and a complete stranger was held captive at knife-point by a low-life thug, who had a grudge against Hero. Thug promises that if he gets to play a free "beat the snot" card on Hero, then he'll let Captive go. Hero knows that he's pretty healthy; in fact, he'll probably survive a beating, as long as Thug doesn't cheat and use the knife. Does he do it?

He'll probably look for some other way to get around it, diplomacy, a trick to put Thug at a disadvantage, an ally to help, etc. but in the end, if it HAS to be done (let's say Thug holds all the cards in this situation), Hero to me will likely volunteer for that beating.

 

[Rel]

He'll probably look for some other way to get around it, diplomacy, a trick to put Thug at a disadvantage, an ally to help, etc. but in the end, if it HAS to be done (let's say Thug holds all the cards in this situation), Hero to me will likely volunteer for that beating.

Whereas I would be inclined to look at the captive and say, "Don't worry sir. If he kills you then he'll never live to tell about it." Then I'd point my gun at the Thug and say, "So how did you want to handle this?"

Hero has a gun, right?

Because if Hero doesn't have a gun and volunteers to take the beating then he's risking his own life, the captive's life and the lives of all the other people he could have heroically saved in the future on the word of this honorless Thug. That smells a lot like "Lawful Stupid" to me.

Your scent may vary.

 

[Henry]

Hero has a gun, right?

Nope; that would qualify as "another way."

Because if Hero doesn't have a gun and volunteers to take the beating then he's risking his own life, the captive's life and the lives of all the other people he could have heroically saved in the future on the word of this honorless Thug. That smells a lot like "Lawful Stupid" to me.

And rather let the captive die to preserve himself for future good deeds? As another example, if I'm a paladin, and a helpless vicitim has a chance to run and save himself if I hold off a demon for a few rounds even though I have no effective weapon, I'm still doing it, even though I could instead get away, find a proper weapon, and go back and avenge the death of the victim.

Good gravy! I can't save everybody around here by myself, somebody else has got to get off their butts, get in gear and kill that thing! Sheesh!

 

[Patman21967]

Yes Henry, I agree with you fully, but if he knows he will survive the beating, what is he really sacrificing. Let's take it a step further. Let's use Gandalf, since he is a prime litereary figure. What did he lose in "dying" at the Balrogs hand, and this is a correlation to the point I made. Nothing. He also know he would come back as a greater form of what he was. Since he possesed this knowledge, I find it hard to see any sacrifice on his part.

To use your Hero analogy, say the Hero knows the beating will kill him, but should he die, he will transcend, and be able to do even more good....is that a sacrifice? I don't see it. It is a noble, and heroic gesture, but armed with the knowledge of what awaits him, I cannot count that as sacrifice...

Just one mans opinion....

 

[Henry]

Yes Henry, I agree with you fully, but if he knows he will survive the beating, what is he really sacrificing. Let's take it a step further. Let's use Gandalf, since he is a prime litereary figure. What did he lose in "dying" at the Balrogs hand, and this is a correlation to the point I made. Nothing. He also know he would come back as a greater form of what he was. Since he possesed this knowledge, I find it hard to see any sacrifice on his part.

To use your Hero analogy, say the Hero knows the beating will kill him, but should he die, he will transcend, and be able to do even more good....is that a sacrifice? I don't see it. It is a noble, and heroic gesture, but armed with the knowledge of what awaits him, I cannot count that as sacrifice...

Just one mans opinion....

What he's sacrificing is his comfort, his safety, and his lack of responsibility. Would you personally get beat up on the behalf of somebody you don't know? It's hard enough in the present day to get people to honor a pledge drive, much less get involved physically.

Gandalf COULD have not gotten involved, hell, even moved to the Western lands with the elves, or done a number of evasive things that bought him time at the expense of Gondor, the Shire, the Rohirrim, etc. He didn't owe a darned thing to the Hobbits - except his friendship. He knew something bad was about to happen, so he acted on it. Just as Han Solo in Star Wars sacrificed his comfort for the friendship of a witchy princess and a scruffy farmboy, he couldn't know that his actions would culminate in galaxy-wide political freedom.

Just because you will come out better in the end doesn't mean it's no sacrifice to get involved. Unless someone has a refutation, I don't think Gandalf knew he'd come out of it better than he went in. Neither did Han, or our Generic Hero.

For my understanding, risk IS sacrifice, it implies acting above the call for another's sake.

 

[Patman21967]

And I had a 6th level Paladin, who knew he would get smoked if he tried to fight the BBEG hand to hand, but he had to, to let his friends have a chance to get away with 2 dead bodies. They did, and he did, and the GM suprised me. I made up a new character, and we played about 6 months before tackling the same BBEG again, we killed him, and found the skull of my Paladin, partially buried under some rubble. So he was able to be brought back to fight another day.

I used that to make a point. That is the difference in the real world, and our wonderful fantasy adventures. The "Paladin" who does that in the real world, should be revered as a "hero". But, say that Paladin in our example had a means to escape, after his friends did. Does that make him any less a hero, because he did not die? I think saying, to qualify as a hero, you must experience loss and sacrifice and pain is incorrect. I have a guy playing a Dwarven Paragon with 230HP at 13th level right now. His AC, because of allowing him to add Con to AC instead of Dex, is close to 40.... can't kill him....but he is the first one to tackle anything threatening to the party, because he is very confident in his abilities...Well, he ran into something he could not hurt...But he did the fight anyway, his fellow party members could retrieve the bodies they were looking for...then they TP'd out...had he not done this, they would not have gotten the bodies of the Kings Children, and been able to get them raised....I say that qualifies, even though he did not die, or get severely wounded....


Thanks for listening guys....a really cool thread.

 

[Henry]

In your second example, I guess one could technically term him a hero - however, the heroism feels like a lower "grade" to me, especially if there's no element of risk involved. Now, in reality, NOTHING is certain - there's a chink in the toughest body armor - but in this example, it's kinda like the guy who goes around with a step ladder rescuing kittens from trees from only 7 feet up, or the guy who goes around dispensing nickels when you're short on change for the vending machine. These are NICE PEOPLE, certainly, but I can't in good conscience apply the word "hero" to them. Now, if the kitten was being mauled by a crazed coyote, and kitten-saver only had his bare hands at the moment, it'd be a different story...

 

[Janx]

To use your Hero analogy, say the Hero knows the beating will kill him, but should he die, he will transcend, and be able to do even more good....is that a sacrifice? I don't see it. It is a noble, and heroic gesture, but armed with the knowledge of what awaits him, I cannot count that as sacrifice...

Getting off into the weeds here, but by Patman's own logic he's basically said his heroic dude that shall not be named due to forum rules, is in effect, not heroic because he knew he'd transcend and do more good.

Back on the trail, I'm put off by the assumption that risk=sacrifice. I'd prefer to keep them seperate. I think heroes take risks to help others. I think professional heroes make sacrifices to live a heroic lifestyle. Some heroes end up making the ultimate sacrifice (which is keyed to the risk of performing each heroic act).

Seeing a house on fire, and rushing inside to rescue a kid has high risk
Assuming basic success, the sacrifice involved is a few minutes time and some smoke inhalation.
Dying while rescuing the kid is sacrificing one's life for another.

There's a distinct difference between risk and sacrifice. They are indeed related, but not the same thing.

To put it another way, the ultimate hero is one that has made the ultimate sacrifice for another.

That does not preclude some one from being a hero and not sacrificing anything.

This difference in risk AND sacrifice are what set the grades of "hero" a person is.

In the case of the guy taking a beating from a thug with a vendetta in exchange for a stranger's freedom, he's dumb. Step one, agree to beating. Step two, once the hostage is free, beat the crap out of the villain. Never take lumps for nothing unless you're one of Spartacus' friends. Playing the whole if game is stupid. Bad guys will hurt people until their stopped. Taking a beating for nothing gains nothing. Taking someone's place so they don't get hurt is heroic. Regretting that you only have one life to give for your country is also heroic. See the difference.

Janx

 

[Henry]

Back on the trail, I'm put off by the assumption that risk=sacrifice. I'd prefer to keep them seperate. I think heroes take risks to help others. I think professional heroes make sacrifices to live a heroic lifestyle. Some heroes end up making the ultimate sacrifice (which is keyed to the risk of performing each heroic act).

Are you not sacrificing your safety? Some sacrifices are quick and temporary; others are perpetual, as Superman sacrificing a personal life, or a Cleric or Druid dedicating his life to his deity.

Seeing a house on fire, and rushing inside to rescue a kid has high risk
Assuming basic success, the sacrifice involved is a few minutes time and some smoke inhalation.

Again, we don't see it the same way, but to me it's sacrificing the status of not being involved. The minute you dive in, you are in it for better or worse.

In the case of the guy taking a beating from a thug with a vendetta in exchange for a stranger's freedom, he's dumb. Step one, agree to beating. Step two, once the hostage is free, beat the crap out of the villain. Never take lumps for nothing unless you're one of Spartacus' friends.

I agree, but the villain could have two buddies who are holding said captive. Again, that falls under "other options." (It's what I'd do, personally. ) If there IS no choice but to take the lumps or walk, what do you do?

 

[Ranger REG]

However, to frame the question a different way:

Let's say you have a normal, healthy person (we'll call him generic hero), and a complete stranger was held captive at knife-point by a low-life thug, who had a grudge against Hero. Thug promises that if he gets to play a free "beat the snot" card on Hero, then he'll let Captive go. Hero knows that he's pretty healthy; in fact, he'll probably survive a beating, as long as Thug doesn't cheat and use the knife. Does he do it?

He'll probably look for some other way to get around it, diplomacy, a trick to put Thug at a disadvantage, an ally to help, etc. but in the end, if it HAS to be done (let's say Thug holds all the cards in this situation), Hero to me will likely volunteer for that beating.

But why go through that for a complete stranger? Who knows? The so-called "captive" may just be a bait.