Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 2293587" data-attributes="member: 2486">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.   Likewise, I'm dubious.  Nevertheless, I can appreciate that RL examples would make this devolve into a political thread, so you needn't name them if you feel that it would degenerate.  It really depends on how distant these figures are: current politicians are probably a no-no, but historical figures like Churchill, Roosevelt and Washington are probably fair game (none of whom meet of these criteria, incidentally).The point I'm making is that to expect a hero to act with all of these qualities all of the time is too much to ask.  The bar is set too high.  No realistic hero will be able to maintain these, particularly not if he is actively adventuring.  The solitary monk, sealed in his enclave, may just approximate them.  An adventuring "hero" (or indeed one active in nearly any walk of life) will never meet these criteria consistently.  The question is then begged: do we try to strive for the impossible, or laud these characters anyway?  I believe we should do the latter.  The problem with setting the bar too high is that it devalues true heroes.  Ordinary heroes with ordinary failings cannot meet the challenge, but did does not mean they have fallen short.  Using an impossibly difficult yardstick can make our greatest leaders and heroes seem lacking.  In calling for an impossible standard for heroism, we make heroes impossible.</blockquote>

Verification