The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[Remathilis]

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?

This is why Lord of the Rings should be banned from all discussions involving D&D.

Pop quiz: What does Conan, King Arthur, Frodo, and Robin Hood all have in common? They're all heroes. Anything else? Nope.

Frodo is a hero for his compassion, self-sacrifice, and sense of duty despite NOT being a great warrior or wizard. This is completely different than Conan, who is a hero by doing good thing while in pursuit of his own ignoble goals. Arthur is an exemplar of righteous piety and chivalry, Robin Hood of vigilantism and justice agains the corruption of society.

What role-playing game allows you to have Frodo, Conan, Arthur, and Robin all on the same "party"? In what world would Frodo's compassion amass the same strength as Conan's savage fury?

Its not D&D. D&D has not, nor has it ever, rewarded heroic sacrifice and noble chivalry. D&D has reward Conan-esque heroism; PCs go into a dungeon, slay the evil monsters, destroy the evil temples, and walk off with all the gold the evil cultists were hoarding before they died. No noble struggle, no heroic sacrifice, no common-everyman who overcomes by heart and will. D&D doesn't like those traits (well, its never created much in the way of mechanics for them) its rewarded power (be it martial power or magical power) with power; kill things, complete quests, steal treasure, level up, do it again.

D&D similarly, has never viewed compassion as a necessary quality. Imagine if Gandalf had cast "Detect Evil" on Gollum and declared Frodo's compassion would fail him and Gollum couldn't be redeemed? D&D does that. D&D makes kobold's Lawful Evil (or Evil in 4e) to allow you to slaughter them without moral quandry. You want moral grayness in D&D, throw some baby kobolds in a nest of them and watch your well-intentioned D&D group degenerate into moral stickiness that will eat up as much time as needed to justify them putting them to the sword. So much for compassion, eh?

(The above is doubly fun with a paladin PC. Ever notice paladin's are the proverbial thorn in every other player's side?)

Oh sure, I can run a game that rewards heroism and heroic traits beyond power and survival, but the game gives me nothing to it. There is no rules for honor, love, beauty, sacrifice, piety, charity, compassion, or virtue (Book of Exalted Deed's excluded). There ARE rules for accumulating and spending wealth, gaining XP to gain new levels of power, and (formerly) rules on morale, henchmen/retainers, and epic magic items.

Says alot about D&D's emphasis, doesn't it?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Pop quiz: What does Conan, King Arthur, Frodo, and Robin Hood all have in common? They're all heroes. Anything else? Nope.

They are all male.

They all gain some stature due to their birth/inheritance (the blood of the Atlanteans flows through the Cimmerians).

They are all elevated above the common person, by means of rank (Conan and Arthur become Kings, Frodo is the Master of Bag End, and Robin Hood was an Earl).

They all spend time among common people (Conan in his youth, Arthur in his youth before pulling the Sword from the Stone, Frodo in his youth in Buckland, Robin Hood in adulthood when he is outlawed).

All are concerned with the legitimacy of the King. Conan with becoming the legitimate king (the only REH Conan novel deals with this, with specific and intentional references to King Arthur, as does the first Conan story, The Phoenix on the Sword). Arthur both with becoming King and regaining/maintaining legitimacy in the Grail Quest. Frodo with aiding Aragorn to see the Return of the King. Robin Hood with defending the common people from Prince John until the true King, Richard the Lionheart, can return.

They all believe in self-sacrifice to protect the weak and innocent -- even Conan shares this impulse. While Conan pursues goals that are sometimes ignoble, the idea that he was naturally noble -- and naturally behaved in such a fashion -- is fundamental to the character.

None but the last of these is needed to make a character a hero, IMHO, but these characters do share more in common that it might appear at first.

RC

 

[billd91]

What role-playing game allows you to have Frodo, Conan, Arthur, and Robin all on the same "party"? In what world would Frodo's compassion amass the same strength as Conan's savage fury?

Its not D&D. D&D has not, nor has it ever, rewarded heroic sacrifice and noble chivalry. D&D has reward Conan-esque heroism; PCs go into a dungeon, slay the evil monsters, destroy the evil temples, and walk off with all the gold the evil cultists were hoarding before they died. No noble struggle, no heroic sacrifice, no common-everyman who overcomes by heart and will. D&D doesn't like those traits (well, its never created much in the way of mechanics for them) its rewarded power (be it martial power or magical power) with power; kill things, complete quests, steal treasure, level up, do it again.

<snip>

Oh sure, I can run a game that rewards heroism and heroic traits beyond power and survival, but the game gives me nothing to it. There is no rules for honor, love, beauty, sacrifice, piety, charity, compassion, or virtue (Book of Exalted Deed's excluded). There ARE rules for accumulating and spending wealth, gaining XP to gain new levels of power, and (formerly) rules on morale, henchmen/retainers, and epic magic items.

Says alot about D&D's emphasis, doesn't it?

Yes, it says D&D is a framework for adventures but not the be-all or end-all of heroic fantasy gaming. Some of that has to come from the DM and players.
If you want to look at D&D as a vehicle, say a Mercury Tracer, it provides the means of getting from point A to point B and involves certain rules - gas goes in, the engine burns the gas to drive the wheels, the clutch enables the gears to be changed without grinding, and off we go. But that says little about how pleasurable or fun the ride would be other than with things tied to the mechanics.
But the driver, and how and where they drive, will have a major impact on whether that car ride meets the goals and desires of the people riding in it.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The heroes in D&D are gone do to the increasing power creep of the game. It's not heroic for an Eladrin to run out on a 3 inch wide ledge to rescue a child, after all, if he falls, he'll just teleport inside the building to safety. In 3e, a pc with a +30 swim check diving in a flooded river to do the same is still not heroic, he'll make the check on a one. It's just a stroll in the park to either of these guys. If it's a simple task, with little or no personal risk, there's nothing heroic about it. A hero is not Superman, he is a normal person, who manages to rise above the common folk due to courage. He may be a bit more skilled than the average Joe, but not amazingly so. That's the difference between 3e and later games and AD&D. A 1e first level character had a couple more hit points than a farmer, but otherwise, they were pretty much the same. He was a HERO because he chose to be, not because his hd was bigger. The mechanics nowadays don't support heroes. When pcs are just exponentially better than everyone else, it's not heroic to face down an ogre, it's just being mercenary.

 

[Umbran]

The heroes in D&D are gone do to the increasing power creep of the game.

Power creep doesn't remove heroism - it merely drives up the requirements for what is considered heroic. The issue at hand is challenge and risk. The DM is always capable of creating scenarios that pose a real challenge to the PCs.

 

[NN]

If challenges have to be dangerous for Heroism...

..how will Heros survive long enough to do epic heroic stuff?



D&D - any edition - isnt going to work for a game "About Heroism".

(Maybe...Pendragon? Some new-fangled indie narrativist thing?)

 

[Remathilis]

The heroes in D&D are gone do to the increasing power creep of the game. It's not heroic for an Eladrin to run out on a 3 inch wide ledge to rescue a child, after all, if he falls, he'll just teleport inside the building to safety. In 3e, a pc with a +30 swim check diving in a flooded river to do the same is still not heroic, he'll make the check on a one. It's just a stroll in the park to either of these guys. If it's a simple task, with little or no personal risk, there's nothing heroic about it. A hero is not Superman, he is a normal person, who manages to rise above the common folk due to courage. He may be a bit more skilled than the average Joe, but not amazingly so. That's the difference between 3e and later games and AD&D. A 1e first level character had a couple more hit points than a farmer, but otherwise, they were pretty much the same. He was a HERO because he chose to be, not because his hd was bigger. The mechanics nowadays don't support heroes. When pcs are just exponentially better than everyone else, it's not heroic to face down an ogre, it's just being mercenary.

See, here is a problem with this mentality; it doesn't work the minute random probability (IE) dice work into the equation.

PCs face the lion-share of dice rolls; attacks, saves, etc. They will take more critical hits, fail more saves, and fall into more pit traps than any monster, farmer, or creature the DM runs. If these people are little-better than the farmers they're defending, you end up with the other end of D&D; kleenex-pcs that step up to the ogre, get killed in 1-2 blows, and are replaced by an equally disposable PC. Those superheroic bonuses (be it spells, superior ability score, or even the virtue of levels) are guards against the random power of the d20, who has a nasty habit of failing at dramatically appropriate moments that would turn a heroic act into a pointless waste.

If heroism is defined in the act, then yeah, my fighter with a +2 to swim is more heroic for jumping into the river to save a drowning child than a fighter with a +30. In a good fiction story, he'd rescue the kid by sheer luck and determination. In D&D, he's more likely roll poor and drown alongside the kid.

Meh, I'll take my Supermen. I get to play them longer.

 

[Fifth Element]

This is why Lord of the Rings should be banned from all discussions involving D&D.

But...then how will we decide what level magic-user Gandalf is?

 

[Fifth Element]

It's not heroic for an Eladrin to run out on a 3 inch wide ledge to rescue a child, after all, if he falls, he'll just teleport inside the building to safety.

Only if he falls by a window. Line of sight.

In 3e, a pc with a +30 swim check diving in a flooded river to do the same is still not heroic, he'll make the check on a one. It's just a stroll in the park to either of these guys. If it's a simple task, with little or no personal risk, there's nothing heroic about it.

Yes, but someone with a +30 Swim can do things far beyond anything that can be considered a "simple task". Arguably that makes them heroic.

 

[Ktulu]

Yes, but someone with a +30 Swim can do things far beyond anything that can be considered a "simple task". Arguably that makes them heroic.

Not true. One could make the argument that Michael Phelps has a +30 swim skill. That makes him athletic, not heroic.

If he were to dive into a whirlpool to save a drowning baby, that makes him heroic.

If he calmly strolls into the shallow end to help save a drowning 27 year old in water-wings (look, I'm not the best swimmer ), that doesn't make him a hero, it makes the other guy a default virgin.

However, if a five year old who just finished her third swimming lesson dives in to save said 27 year old, that would make her a hero.

Heroism is self-sacrifice for the greater good. If there's no possible failure, then you didn't really sacrifice anything.