Resolutions for the Fantasy Hero

Some of you have seen Peter's "Evil Overlord List" from 1996-97. It's "The Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord" such as "Shooting is not too good for my enemies." If you've not read it before, it may help you make your opponents-for-adventurers more effective. It seems only fair that a similar list should exist for the heroes.

View attachment 100077
​

Photo by Pawel Janiak on Unsplash
​

This idea came to me after watching a Shannara Chronicles episode where Our Heroes had the leader and chief motivator of an enemy organization unconscious in their hands. They needed to escape the enemy fortress, but a couple were in bad shape from torture, so there was no way to take the leader along. Did any of the five think to "off" him on the spot? No, and 10 minutes later he was leading more of his men as the heroes were trying to complete their escape. This is SO like television (and movies).

Many from the Evil list are just as good for the Goodguys, but for copyright reasons I do not include them. (The Evil list includes technology; I'm sticking with fantasy.)

1. I will not split the party.
2. A foolhardy act is a brave act which fails. I will not be foolhardy.
3. When I capture one of my chief enemies, and cannot take them to prison, I will thoroughly kill them on the spot. (Shannara Chronicles)
4. If it's impractical to "bring the Evil Overlord to justice", I'll kill them on the spot. I AM justice, when Necessary.
5. I will burn to fine ashes any powerful enemy I kill, whenever possible.
6. One of my advisers will be non-military, non-adventurer, maybe even non-adult; they'll notice flaws in my plans that no one else will.
7. I will not gloat over my enemies' predicament before killing them (from the Evil list . . .).
8. I will run away to fight another day, rather than die futilely.
9. I will not fight "just for the experience". Focus on the Objective!
10. I will take and interrogate prisoners rather than Slaughter Everyone.
11. I will never think I'm invincible/indestructible.
12. I will have backup plans.
13. I will have backups of items that I need to defeat the Evil Overlord.
14. I will also find the Evil Overlord's children/siblings, and if they're Evil, kill them.
15. Lawful Evil is not trustworthy.
16. I will not allow Evil characters to join my party.
17. This is a War, not Sport. I will kill the Evil bastards any way I can.
18. When I capture a beautiful minion of the Evil Overlord, I will not believe she's so attracted to my good looks and purity that she will gladly betray her Lord. (If I'm female, same applies to handsome male minions.)
19. While escaping I will not pause to make some wise-crack to the enemy.
20. If my advisers/friends think my plan is bad, I will listen to them.
21. My guards/prison wardens will always operate in pairs. If one goes missing the other will immediately raise the alarm.
22. I will imprison enemies in widely separated places, whenever possible.
23. I will take my enemies alive only where it is practical.
24. I will not immediately believe an enemy who says they have Seen the Light and are changing sides.
25. When the big fight is about to start, I will think about all my items and capabilities to find something especially useful.
26. I will never accept a challenge from an enemy leader.
27. The only good orc, is a dead orc. (Or other Evil race.)
28. I will not split the party!

No doubt you can think of more.

Just as the Evil Overlord list is (in one sense) an admonition for those who play/control dominating Evil characters, my list is intended as an admonition/guideline for those who play Good characters. Even in the days when most D&Ders were wargamers, the standard of tactical and strategic play in D&D was quite low. Simple things such as security around a camp, running away from a fight when it served no purpose within the context of what the party was trying to do, taking prisoners to gather intelligence – most parties didn’t (and still don’t) do it. As more non-gamers joined the hobby, the standard has tended to slip further.

Not taking prisoners, especially, was striking. I remember arranging “cutting out” expeditions designed to capture a guard (using invisibility, flight, and the like outdoors) so that we could “squeeze him ‘til the pips squeak” for information using ESP and other magic that assured we got full reliable information. Of course, there are GMs who absolutely refuse to let the players gain any information this way . . .

More commonly nowadays, players don’t have the patience for good tactics and especially for good strategy. And GMs who impose a story on the game, don’t want to lose control by letting players gain information in an unanticipated way.

Both lists are intended to be amusing, though I am no comedian and figure you folks will come up with more amusing admonitions. Sometimes an amusing phrase will sink into a player’s brain where something more straightforward might not. Depends on the player.

This article was contributed by Lewis Pulsipher (lewpuls) as part of EN World's Columnist (ENWC) program.We are always on the lookout for freelance columnists! If you have a pitch, please contact us!

 

[MoonSong]

“Presentism” is the imposition of contemporary morality on historical figures of centuries ago, usually resulting in criticism of those people. It’s nonsense, because circumstances were quite different, and morality was different, “back then”.

Example: people think the Romans were evil for having slaves. Slavery is always bad, right? No. Romans enslaved prisoners of war (and virtually every year, Rome was at war somewhere). If you said to a Roman that’s wrong, the Roman would say, “what, you want us to kill them instead? We can’t afford to keep our enemies alive, they have to earn their keep - via slavery.” (The Romans may have been the nation in world history most likely to enable their slaves to earn their freedom, by the way.)

What I see here is some people imposing their standards of morality (from the current oh-so-safe wrap-kids-in-cotton-wool modern world), on people in life-and-death adventuring situations. And it’s just as much nonsense as presentism is. None of us here are likely old enough to remember WW II. That was a much grimmer reality than anything today, and if my understanding of history is correct, morality wasn’t quite the same then as now. Desperate situations make for different points of view.

Some of us may remember the heart of the Cold War, perhaps even the Cuban Missile Crisis, when people genuinely feared that nuclear destruction was about to begin. Once again, standards of morality just might have been different then, than they are now, when there’s no such sword hanging over our heads.

I chose dictums that made sense in a very dangerous world. Some people here are talking about a fantasy morality in the sense of “this could never happen in a real world of adventuring.” There’s a war on. Combat is war, not sport. (See RPG Combat: Sport or War?
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?4580-RPG-Combat-Sport-or-War#.WeJ8zGiPKUk ) The object is to make the enemy surrender, or slaughter them if they won’t. Being nice is not an option. Perhaps contemporaries don’t understand that kind of desperate situation, given our safe-and-secure contemporary world.

I don’t see how you can impose contemporary “no one can actually hurt me” morality on a game where people DIE. Now if you play story-telling instead of a game, there’s no real danger involved, that’s a different kettle of fish. I'm talking about role-playing GAMES.

Your mileage may vary.

I know about the presentism thing, and I'm kind of in favor of forgoing it. But this particular situation doesn't really apply to it. Because the fantasy genre in particular comes from Medieval Europe, our current sense of morality evolved directly from theirs. If anything, the standards for heroism back then were stricter back then. Even if you go back to the Romans and the Greek, heroes were meant to be honorable back then. And we have to take into account that the fantasy genre is also heavily romanticized. You cannot be dishonorable and still call yourself a hero -in fantasy at least-. Half your list describes dishonorable things death world or not.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Oddly enough, I've seen quite a few people over the years say they thought that was one of the best articles Dragon Magazine articles ever. To each his own.

Point taken, I should have phrased it "one of my least favorite articles". It seems to me that it's use would be great in a "Fantasy <bleeping> Vietnam" kind of game, but that is almost the opposite of my approach to RPGs. The fact I tend to high fantasy and more often Superhero games is an indication of that.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I know about the presentism thing, and I'm kind of in favor of forgoing it. But this particular situation doesn't really apply to it. Because the fantasy genre in particular comes from Medieval Europe, our current sense of morality evolved directly from theirs. If anything, the standards for heroism back then were stricter back then. Even if you go back to the Romans and the Greek, heroes were meant to be honorable back then. And we have to take into account that the fantasy genre is also heavily romanticized. You cannot be dishonorable and still call yourself a hero -in fantasy at least-. Half your list describes dishonorable things death world or not.

So um.

1. In Greek and Roman times the idea of heroism was almost exclusively tied to the wealthy or men of exceptional birth to begin with.
2. It was based on obtaining everlasting fame and glory through epic actions and physical tasks.
3. It was primarily meant to allow the hero recognition for his or her actions.
4. Last, one of the only ways that women could be seen as equal was to be deceitful, as that was seen as a strength to be used against the male heroes. Note that deceit was also a possible action for men so long as the result was glory.

So kleos, time, arete and dolos. Much of it is compatible with D&D alignments, good and evil. But if you take the greek definition of heroism is more based on outcomes regardless of the intentions behind the actions.

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think much of the issue folks may be having with the "good" list is that "common sense" doesn't vibe with heroic fantasy regardless of alignment or what side you're looking at it from.

If the original list done for evil overlords was consistent with how evil works in fantasy, it wouldn't be funny or memorable.
As such any list done for good heroes will not be consistent with how good works in fantasy. It's less amusing as a basis for conversation simply because common sense doesn't have an alignment other than self-interest.

Folks don't crap on the list for evil overlords because at the very least self-interest aligns with an evil character more naturally.

KB

 

[Dragonhelm]

If I could make a suggestion, I would recommend resizing images before posting them rather than using a full 5184 x 3456 image. The page will load a lot faster that way.

 

[jmucchiello]

These kinds of lists are very old:

The righteous hero list

the successful hero list

And amusingly, a rebuttal to the overlord list: Rebuttal

 

[MoonSong]

So um.

1. In Greek and Roman times the idea of heroism was almost exclusively tied to the wealthy or men of exceptional birth to begin with.
2. It was based on obtaining everlasting fame and glory through epic actions and physical tasks.
3. It was primarily meant to allow the hero recognition for his or her actions.
4. Last, one of the only ways that women could be seen as equal was to be deceitful, as that was seen as a strength to be used against the male heroes. Note that deceit was also a possible action for men so long as the result was glory.

So kleos, time, arete and dolos. Much of it is compatible with D&D alignments, good and evil. But if you take the greek definition of heroism is more based on outcomes regardless of the intentions behind the actions.

For Romans, at least, honor and duty mattered, not just results. They were a lawful and traditional society. And I grant you, Greeks cared more about the results only, but even they weren't a machiavellian ends-justify-all-means paradise, there were consequences for going too far, things were find and dandy for Bellerophon, he could slay chimeras and murder Amazons all he wanted, but mount Olympus was off-limits. The same with all Greek heroes, Odysseus had pay for his extreme deceit and hubris by getting lost ten years and dying in the Arctic. Agamemnon paid with his life sacrificing his daughter to the gods. Jason had his kids and new bride killed after he betrayed Medea. And let´s not get into all of the parricide, incest and violation of sacred hospitality...

 

[Shasarak]

“Presentism” is the imposition of contemporary morality on historical figures of centuries ago, usually resulting in criticism of those people. It’s nonsense, because circumstances were quite different, and morality was different, “back then”.

Example: people think the Romans were evil for having slaves. Slavery is always bad, right? No. Romans enslaved prisoners of war (and virtually every year, Rome was at war somewhere). If you said to a Roman that’s wrong, the Roman would say, “what, you want us to kill them instead? We can’t afford to keep our enemies alive, they have to earn their keep - via slavery.” (The Romans may have been the nation in world history most likely to enable their slaves to earn their freedom, by the way.)

So Roman slavery was not Evil because after they invaded your lands killing your family, destroying your home, kidnapping you back to a foreign place that does not even speak your language they at least had the decency to let you buy your freedom again?

Well that is relativism for you, I guess.

 

[Henry]

Oddly enough, I've seen quite a few people over the years say they thought that was one of the best articles Dragon Magazine articles ever. To each his own.

I still use that article.

 

[Henry]

Point taken, I should have phrased it "one of my least favorite articles". It seems to me that it's use would be great in a "Fantasy <bleeping> Vietnam" kind of game, but that is almost the opposite of my approach to RPGs. The fact I tend to high fantasy and more often Superhero games is an indication of that.

Think about the time in which D&D was created, and the style of play that was popular when the article was written, and it makes more sense...

However, I use quite a bit of advice from that article even today. For instance, my characters NEVER, EVER “go nova”, and if I tell my fellow players “i’m Out of spells” what that really means is “i’m Down to about 25% of full power” because they have a tendency to keep going even past being resource-dry, even if we don’t expect to face any other opposition. Always expect to face at least ONE more opponent before you can get to a safe place to rest. Therefore, if we do, I always have a little something in reserve, even if it’s scrolls, to make it to safety. Same thing with communication in the field - if you don’t have a solid plan where it’s established what others are doing, and you all end up inadvertently working at cross purposes, you can get yourself killed even if the enemy doesn’t so much as swing a sword! In fact, so much of that “special forces” advice from the article is really Sun Tzu as seen through the lens of D&D.

Anyway, back to the latest article about Inglorious B... er, heroes, whether I agree or disagree with a lot of it, it’s thought provoking at least - why do we find the Villain list funny, but not so much with our heroes? Because the trope of the incompetent villain is so widespread that the villain list is a reaction to it, but I think that, just as the “antihero” was a reaction to the omnipresent idealistic hero trope, the antihero started becoming widespread that the idealistic hero was a counter-reaction.