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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrgh! Mark!" data-source="post: 2296216" data-attributes="member: 14559">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.</blockquote>

Verification