The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[nightwyrm]

I think we're confusing two different definition of hero here. There's the ancient definition where hero simply means superhuman. If you've read some ancient myths, a lot of "heroes" aren't very "heroic" in the modern sense. They don't have to be moral, or brave, or self-sacrificing. They're flawed, selfish, jealous. They kill monsters not out of the goodness of their heart but to get the loot or to prove themselves. A lot of the times, they're borderline psychopathic. They get to be called heroes simply because they can do awesome badass stuff.

The modern definition of hero is where it places more emphasis on courage, virtue, self-sacrifice, motivation etc. rather than on the hero's powers.

This leads back to gaming. Are you trying to portray the ancient hero archetype or the modern hero archetype with your own character.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Which is a poor system for an RPG. Most* RPGs are designed to follow a single character from nobody to epic. Luke from farmboy to Jedi knight. Frodo from landed gentry to savior of Middle Earth. The stories lose some emotional depth if Luke dies because his X-Wing is randomly shot down by a TIE fighter or Wilbo Baggins, Frodo's long lost cousin, has to complete his quest because Frodo was crushed by a cave-troll in Moria.

You need something to mitigate the odds and allow your hero to survive and do heroic things.

* (There are some that humorously void this principle: Call of Chulu, Toon and Paranoia are famous examples).

 

[Ktulu]

Good point, Nightwyrm. I was referring to a more modern view of the hero, but hadn't really considered the classic Beowulf, Herc, or Achilles.

 

[nightwyrm]

Good point, Nightwyrm. I was referring to a more modern view of the hero, but hadn't really considered the classic Beowulf, Herc, or Achilles.

So, I would argue that the XP and loot structure of D&D cater to those ancient hero archetype more than the modern version. So it's easier just to make an "awesome" hero than a "paragon of virtue" hero, but it's not impossible.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

They kill monsters not out of the goodness of their heart but to get the loot or to prove themselves.

Usually still against a great element of risk, regardless of motive.

In a "balanced" game the risk can be much ameleorated. I felt my old 1e characters were always more at risk than they were when I played 3e for example.

Personally I think the term 'Hero" is often mis-used/over-used. When I used to play 1st ed. D&D I never thought I was playing a 'Hero" I was playing an "adventurer" - more of a mercenary really considering the motives ("show me the money, tapestries, and expensive carpets"). We always used the term "Heroes" very tongue-in-cheek.

Paladins were an exception, but our group never played them properly, we abused them for their powers.

 

[Ktulu]

Which is a poor system for an RPG. Most* RPGs are designed to follow a single character from nobody to epic. Luke from farmboy to Jedi knight. Frodo from landed gentry to savior of Middle Earth. The stories lose some emotional depth if Luke dies because his X-Wing is randomly shot down by a TIE fighter or Wilbo Baggins, Frodo's long lost cousin, has to complete his quest because Frodo was crushed by a cave-troll in Moria.

You need something to mitigate the odds and allow your hero to survive and do heroic things.

* (There are some that humorously void this principle: Call of Chulu, Toon and Paranoia are famous examples).

I disagree here. Your point is valid, but the possibility of failure is ever-present in the RPG and in the stories you mention.

In Star Wars, Anakin was the fated hero to save the day. Unfortunately, the player wasn't paying attention and was seriously irritated that obi-wan was higher level; he ended up with too many dark side points and lost the character.

He rolls up his new character, Luke, and the story continues on. Mid-way through the campaign, he meets up with his previous character, now Darth Vader, and finds out that Luke is Vader's son. "That's not true! That's impossible!" says Luke, but the DM chuckles and says that yes, in fact, Padme' did have a child. This time, the player is smarter and doesn't pick up the same amount of darkside points, and is able to redeem his previous character, in the process.

In Lord of the Rings you get the same story. Elendil failed his save vs the ring and disbanded the party (Elrond's player was really peeved). The new character, Aragorn, a decendant of Elendil, would succeed on the save and eventually become king.

D&D totally allows for this, the players & GM just have to think outside the box-d set.

 

[jasin]

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.

What if Phelps calmly strolls into the shallow end to save a drowning 5-year old?

Is it only heroism if chances of success aren't very good? Or is it heroism if it's the right thing?

I think the important part is that it's the right thing. You can do the right thing with +2 just the same as you can with +30. The difference is that with +30, you're more likely to succeed and keep playing the same character and do the right thing next time. +30 rewards heroism with success, and I think most people find that satisfying and that's why they prefer playing with +30 rather than +2.

 

[Lackhand]

I disagree here. Your point is valid, but the possibility of failure is ever-present in the RPG and in the stories you mention.

In Star Wars, Anakin was the fated hero to save the day. Unfortunately, the player wasn't paying attention and was seriously irritated that obi-wan was higher level; he ended up with too many dark side points and lost the character.

He rolls up his new character, Luke, and the story continues on. Mid-way through the campaign, he meets up with his previous character, now Darth Vader, and finds out that Luke is Vader's son. "That's not true! That's impossible!" says Luke, but the DM chuckles and says that yes, in fact, Padme' did have a child. This time, the player is smarter and doesn't pick up the same amount of darkside points, and is able to redeem his previous character, in the process.

In Lord of the Rings you get the same story. Elendil failed his save vs the ring and disbanded the party (Elrond's player was really peeved). The new character, Aragorn, a decendant of Elendil, would succeed on the save and eventually become king.

D&D totally allows for this, the players & GM just have to think outside the box-d set.

Neither Luke nor Anakin may _fail_ at anything. They're authorial characters; there is no element of chance in their doings at all.

While you can read the situation as you present it, all of the dice have to fall exactly correctly in the absence of rules to allow tweaking random results or a "cheating" (benevolently!) DM; most tables will see Luke fail during, at minimum, the trench run, and be replaced with Bluke Spywalker, who is of course unlikely to be related to Anakin, what with the new last name.

Star Wars introduces new mechanics to at least encourage swashbuckling action -- force points -- and encouraging falls from grace -- dark side points.

However, even those are only necessary (and not sufficient) for the kind of swashbuckling derring do that main characters survive in novels.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Neither Luke nor Anakin may _fail_ at anything. They're authorial characters; there is no element of chance in their doings at all.

Authorial characters can fail; their success or failure is controlled by the author.


RC

 

[Remathilis]

I disagree here. Your point is valid, but the possibility of failure is ever-present in the RPG and in the stories you mention.

D&D totally allows for this, the players & GM just have to think outside the box-d set.

The problem is that in D&D, 90% of the time success or failure is dictated by randomness, not plot. In SW or LotR, the author decides the hero fails when it is dramatically appropriate. In D&D, barring house rules, your just as likely to fail in the first encounter with orcs/battle droids as you are in Mt. Doom/Mustafar.

That does not encourage heroic behavior, or at least, it doesn't reward it. It rewards careful, thoughtful play, retreat when outgunned, strength in superior numbers, and no unnecessary risk-taking (check out some of the Enworld threads about 1e players avoiding monsters for a great example). All of which run counter to the "heroic impulse" found in most fiction.

In honesty, I find fourth (and somewhat third) encourages a more heroic attitude by overpowering PCs. They are better than the common man, and they have power to counteract bad luck with dice. Sure, they fail, but its less often than before. That empowers me to be heroic, to try things knowing I have a bit of a safety net for failure beyond "4d6".