The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[Sir Brennen]

Sorry Jack. I read your recycled blog posts, here and in the other threads you've started, and this is the first thing that springs to mind:

"Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage."
- X-Files "From Outer Space"​

You seem to be hung up on pointing the finger at more modern game mechanics of somehow robbing you of your romantic ideal of heroic play. Scratch that. A romantic ideal of heroism itself. Or a feeling of real magic. As if these are things that can be found in a roleplaying game.

Do you remember that in the 1st edition of the game, the growth of your hero was explicitly tied to how much gold he grabbed? How many things he killed?

However, in more recent game systems, the idea of giving rewards for actions and story are more commonplace than ever. You can play the game without a single combat, deeply roleplaying your character, and still advance him.

Also, as mentioned above, playing a "simple" hero can get kind of boring. One dimensional. I usually play heroes, sometimes "dark" heroes, but I enjoy having background conflicts, moral ambiguity and hard choices presented to my PC. These are often more reflective of similar (though less dramatic) choices I encounter in my day to day life. My RPG experiences today are a far cry from the dungeon extermination expeditions of my youth. If anything, I find these complex characters more interesting than the simple "Kill the dragon, save the village" ilk of heroes that your purple prose brings to mind.

 

[Lhorgrim]

I tend to agree with Raven Crowking on this one.

I think society as a whole has drifted from the type of hero in the OP. There seem to be fewer classic heroes in pop culture now. Maybe because those heroes aren't "cool" enough for modern tastes. Maybe heroes of that type are now the "Dudley Doorights" from my youth, the characters that we laugh at because they aren't as advanced and worldly as we are.

I'm sure there are "classic" heroes in recent mass media, but there sure seem to be a lot of Hancocks and Vic Makeys. I see a touch of evil as the new replacement to the tragic flaw of the heroes when I was a kid. Heck, it seems like a lot of the heroes when I was a kid didn't really have any flaw at all, just misfortunes that stretched out the action for the length of the TV show or movie.

Based on these totally unscientific observations, I have come to the conclusion (for myself) that game systems don't dictate the heroic spirit a player can create, but the players themselves tend to create characters for which they have a ready reference. I don't want to play an assassin, but somebody who really digs reading Punisher or playing Assassins Creed might.
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[Psion]

Rules don't effect what kind of character you wish to play,

I don't think that's true. Different games reward different actions and the resulting play mode will tend to be different.

 

[Jack7]

Because I got from it "Are heroes born of the imagination, or are heroes born out of the numbers that make him up?" And since the first tip-toe into an edition flame war is "there's no fluff in 4E, it's just balanced crunch"... that tells me pretty clearly you're looking for people to debate both sides.

If people wish to debate both sides of the issue, or any side of an issue, then that's good. That's what a debate is for.
As for your point, I'm not really sure we're thinking the same thing about the same subject.

For instance, mechanically I could care less about the differences in 4E from 1E, except in certain respects of personal preference. (But that's more psychological and personal than factual in nature.) Everything has to have mechanics to operate, even games.

As for the so-called Edition Wars I could care less about that either.
In my games we use 4E characters for humanoids, elves, dwarves, that kind of thing, hybrid (one's I developed, not base don 4E) character classes for human characters. I like it that way cause this makes humans and non-humans so very different form one another, and since in my setting they live on different worlds, the alien-ness and differences between humans and non-humans works out great. But those differences are not really germane to what makes a Hero.

For instance one could easily say that both Frodo Baggins and Aragorn are Heroes, but very different kinds of Heroes, (though very much the same in some respects). But numbers and levels and ranks and classes and races and powers and that kind of thing didn't make them heroes. Neither did titles. Frodo was not a Hero because he carried a +3 short sword named Sting, and Aragorn was not a Hero because he was really the King in exile wielding the sword that was remade. He was heroic long before anyone knew he was a King. Frodo was heroic despite Sting, Sam was certainly terrifically heroic despite having no magic at all. Probably more heroic because he had no magic at all. Frodo bore the ring, but Sam bore Frodo. That kind of thing happens all the time in heroic myth. You don't see it exemplified much in modern games though. Heroism has become artificially "attached or linked" to things that have nothing to do with Heroism, and so mask or camouflage those things that do have to do with real heroism. A Hero is not somebody who has actually done anything heroic, he's somebody in game who has reached a certain level,a tier, or has become high enough in rank to warrant a Paragon path. Mechanically speaking. As for speaking about acts of heroism, who knows or cares. The point is he leveled up. That is the real point of heroism, right?

But I personally could care less whether Elves have super-powers, or pluck good bowstrings. Neither one is an avenue to Heroism, they are just tools to use in order to potentially achieve Heroism. Heroism isn't achieved mechanically, but then again it can be deflected or mitigated mechanically. That is one can become lost at sea by watching the waves instead of by reading the compass and following the course that's charted. But the mechanisms aren't really important as long as they are not interfering or diverting attention away from the objective.

I think society as a whole has drifted from the type of hero in the OP. There seem to be fewer classic heroes in pop culture now. Maybe because those heroes aren't "cool" enough for modern tastes. Maybe heroes of that type are now the "Dudley Doorights" from my youth, the characters that we laugh at because they aren't as advanced and worldly as we are.

I'm sure there are "classic" heroes in recent mass media, but there sure seem to be a lot of Hancocks and Vic Makeys. I see a touch of evil as the new replacement to the tragic flaw of the heroes when I was a kid. Heck, it seems like a lot of the heroes when I was a kid didn't really have any flaw at all, just misfortunes that stretched out the action for the length of the TV show or movie.

Based on these totally unscientific observations, I have come to the conclusion (for myself) that game systems don't dictate the heroic spirit a player can create, but the players themselves tend to create characters for which they have a ready reference. I don't want to play an assassin, but somebody who really digs reading Punisher or playing Assassins Creed might.

I liked your observations. Not my exact point, but then mine was just a starting point to thinking about Heroism in games. Hell, heroism in real life for that matter.

If you found a way to imagine being an Hero before discovering RPGs, and cannot now, that seems like a failure of the imagination.

I didn't say I could not now. I'm saying I don't see it being promoted. I see other, far lesser and less important things being promoted instead.

True heros aren't preventable by rules any more than they are by their own shortcomings.

And well said.

Indeed.

Always the pragmatist Jas. Always the pragmatist.

Where have all the heroes gone
And where are all the gods?
Where's the street-wise Hercules
to fight the rising odds?

That made me laugh. I have the album by the way.
I wrote a poem for this thread, humor-wise, but I haven't had time to type it up yet.

Rules don't effect what kind of character you wish to play, he can be a anti-hero, a villain, a thug, a hero, a reluctant hero, etc, etc, etc. With whatever edition you have. It is really that simple.

Indeed.

Sorry Umbran, sorry Jack. Got a little carried away there. My apologies.

Makes no difference to me Vay.
It's just words. That was one thing I was saying about Heroism. The difference between words and action.
You can't make a Hero by saying, "Hey, I'm writing into the game a progression chart for an Epic Destiny!"
Oh, you are, are ya? Can I get free super-powers with that too, or do I have to actually do something worthwhile to earn the honor?

There's a difference in life, and even in games, between what we say and what we do.
How we act, now that may or may not be heroic, depending on circumstances. What we say, now that may or may not be true, depending on circumstances, but words are never actions.
But anyways I took no offense.
And wouldn't have even if I had actually read it.

Well gents and dolls, I gotta go cut bait.

Got an old buddy coming in that I haven't seen since his last tour of duty.
And best of all, he's bringing the whole family with him. Haven't seen them in even longer. He's gotta boy in college now. Man, how time flies.

Anywho the wife is back with the vittles.

Later gators, and please carry on if you wanna.
I'm going to go eat and then talk shop awhile.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I tend to agree with Raven Crowking on this one.

I'd edit that line out, if I were you. Talk like that can get you in trouble.

I don't think that's true. Different games reward different actions and the resulting play mode will tend to be different.

I agree absolutely.

For instance one could easily say that both Frodo Baggins and Aragorn are Heroes, but very different kinds of Heroes, (though very much the same in some respects). But numbers and levels and ranks and classes and races and powers and that kind of thing didn't make them heroes. Neither did titles. Frodo was not a Hero because he carried a +3 short sword named Sting, and Aragorn was not a Hero because he was really the King in exile wielding the sword that was remade. He was heroic long before anyone knew he was a King.

Just as a side note......In the novel, Aragorn knew that he was the Heir of Isuldur all of his life. He certainly knew (or hoped) that he was destined to be King before the novel begins.....his becoming King is a condition placed upon his marriage to Arwen. Within Tolkein's world, the blood of Numenor flowing through Aragorn's veins does indeed have quite a bit to do with his being heroic. It doesn't make him infallable, but it certainly pushes him in the right direction.



RC

 

[Umbran]

An ogre is WotC-D&D is simply more likely to win a fight against level 1 PCs than an ogre was in TSR-D&D, because the scaling is different. What you might accomplish through luck, wit, and gumption in 1e is far too often suicidal in 3e.

I think you're a tad mistaken.

Given a sufficient selection of monsters spread throughout the various power levels, there's always something sitting in that heroic sweet spot. It may not be an ogre, but there's something there. If the DM wants to present encounters that are won by the skin of the teeth, he or she may still do so.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Is it me, or is the "heroic sweet spot" of pushing the PCs to the edge of death and the PCs succeeding through luck, wit and gumption easier to achieve in 4E than it was in any previous edition.

I'm DMing 4E right now and I can manage that in 3 out of every 4 combats without breaking a sweat. I could never manage that running 2E or 3E.

 

[Sir Brennen]

For instance one could easily say that both Frodo Baggins and Aragorn are Heroes, but very different kinds of Heroes, (though very much the same in some respects). But numbers and levels and ranks and classes and races and powers and that kind of thing didn't make them heroes. Neither did titles. Frodo was not a Hero because he carried a +3 short sword named Sting, and Aragorn was not a Hero because he was really the King in exile wielding the sword that was remade. He was heroic long before anyone knew he was a King. Frodo was heroic despite Sting, Sam was certainly terrifically heroic despite having no magic at all. Probably more heroic because he had no magic at all. Frodo bore the ring, but Sam bore Frodo. That kind of thing happens all the time in heroic myth. You don't see it exemplified much in modern games though. Heroism has become artificially "attached or linked" to things that have nothing to do with Heroism, and so mask or camouflage those things that do have to do with real heroism. A Hero is not somebody who has actually done anything heroic, he's somebody in game who has reached a certain level,a tier, or has become high enough in rank to warrant a Paragon path. Mechanically speaking. As for speaking about acts of heroism, who knows or cares. The point is he leveled up. That is the real point of heroism, right?

Here I think is the crux of the problem. You're presenting a straw man argument. No one is actually saying that your level or weapon bonus or Paragon powers has come to mean Hero, except you.

To get these things a player has had to take his character through numerous adventures, most likely of a heroic nature. The numbers on the character's sheet are nothing more than a guideline to show the PC's progress as a result of his heroic actions, not a definition of them. One thing the stats, powers, feats, etc. do show is that heroes are individuals, capable of a wide variety of ways and means to accomplish their heroic endeavors, and not just cookie-cutter white knights in shining armor.

Even if I create a higher level character to join a campaign already in progress, (or replace a character that has died), I still decide what his background is, what his motivations are, and what type of previous adventures allowed him to advance to the point he is at. He has a story. He is presumed to have done heroic things.

Another thing the mechanics do is give a guide to what type of heroic adventures the character can embark upon. You wouldn't have a party of first level scrubs taking on the Lich King in his extra-dimensional stronghold right away. But over the course of a campaign, wherein they do many heroic things, they'll eventually get there. They don't earn their Epic powers and magic items sitting in a warehouse playing gin rummy.

Now, maybe you do know some people that play RPG's with an eye toward nothing more than "what do I get when I level up?" And you know what, it's a game, there's nothing wrong with that. It's a game, with a carrot 'n' stick built into it. You lay the blame on modern RPGs, but it's always been that way.

I think that this is a natural view for people new to role-playing, as they are still learning and getting to experience the untried things that advancing brings. And I think it was even more common in earlier editions, because a much greater percentage of players were new. But even with the players who obsessed over getting their Strength to 18/00, people where still enjoying the exploits of their fictional persona in a fantasy world. They were still having their characters act like heroes. And if a player sticks with roleplaying long enough that he's more comfortable with the mechanics, more attention will typically be paid to the story and their PC's place in it.

So I reject your premise that "hero" has come to mean what's on a character's sheet, or that giggling that "I have Hyper-Cleave!" is somehow mutually exclusive with roleplaying a noble barbarian out to regain his tribe's honor in a heroic campaign.

 

[JohnBiles]

Heroism hasn't gone anywhere. 4E chars are neither more or less implicitly heroic than 1E characters were. It's all dependent on what you do with them.

If you want some heroism, just go look at the brief examples of adventurers for each race given in chapter 2 of the 4E PHB. You have people like Donaar, a Paladin of Erathis, who wants to create a new Dragonborn civilzation from the ashes of the old. Tordek the Dwarf Fighter, who wants to reclaim and rebuild his ancestral dwarfhold. Varis the Elven Ranger who fights to defend the human town his people have fled to in the face of goblinoid pressures.

Etc, etc.

I don't think the heroism has really gone anywhere except in so far as our society in general is a little more skeptical and burntout than it was in the 80s.

 

[GSHamster]

It might just be a factor of age. We were younger back then, and maybe we believed more deeply.

Maybe it has nothing to do with editions, maybe we just grew up and stopped believing in heroes.