The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[Mallus]

A 1e first level character had a couple more hit points than a farmer, but otherwise, they were pretty much the same.

How about a 15th level 1e character? Using your logic, they would be unable to perform heroic acts.

The mechanics nowadays don't support heroes.

1e characters become superheroic as they gain levels. Are you forgetting this?

When pcs are just exponentially better than everyone else, it's not heroic to face down an ogre, it's just being mercenary.

So you cap PC advancement at 5th level to preserve the heroism?

 

[Raven Crowking]

1e characters become superheroic as they gain levels. Are you forgetting this?

Superheroic is relative, though. No character in 1e can do some of the things that relatively low-level 3e and 4e characters can do.

A 1e level fighter liteally becomes a superhero, though, according to the level progression tables.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

My answers would be 1. No and 2. No.

The question might remain: If the task is easily accomplished with your abilities, is it still heroic? Depends. Does it still risk life and limb? I'd say yes.

One major problem I'm seeing arise here in these discussions is the metagame debate. Is it really heroic if you know that your PC will likely survive the event? Who cares? That's a metagame debate that may be about cautious vs risky play. Is it, from an in-character perspective, a heroic thing to do? Then yes, the character is a hero.

Agreed on all points.


RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

So, being a hero means you can't have a plan B if plan A doesn't work out? Or that you can't try your best to maximize your chances of survival in the event that plan A fails, so that you can activate plan B?

I'm speaking to the "safety net" of inherent rules that you allude to in a RPG. You essentially said you're now free to act heroically because the rules themselves provide a safety net. Taking an action knowing the rules themselves will save you or greatly mitigate your failure isn't acting heroically (as a player).

Which definition of hero are you using anyway? Extraordinary ability? Morality? Courage? The willingness to take risks and sacrifice oneself for others? IMO, none of the above precludes the use of a safety net if it is feasible to have one.

This whole discussion mixes narrative and game rule considerations, but I will say that, in my opinion, a hero is not someone who acts knowing there is a safety net in the event of failure. In RPGs, this applies to both the character and the player.

All versions of D&D have a certain level of "safety net" built in to their rules. Acting heroically (game-wise) in any of the editions is doing something that the player knows isn't covered by them. Acting heroically (narrative-wise) is doing something the character doesn't know there is a guaranteed safety net for.

IMO

 

[Remathilis]

You're not a hero if you have a safety net . . .

See, that is not true. Firefighters have PLENTY of equipment and training that helps them battle fires, police carry firearms and wear Kevlar in dangerous situations, and the US armed forces has some of the best training, gear, and backup of all the nations of the world. I dare you not to call any of them a hero.

D&D PCs are like these folk. They are better than farmers in the realm of adventuring because (by training, generics, or magic) they are better suited to the job. They have the best gear, training, and are slightly less risk-adverse than the typical folk.

Now, in D&D if I do something dangerous (attack an ogre or rescue a drowning child) I see no fault in minimizing my personal risk. That includes maximizing my chances of success. That's what these folks above do every day. They don't charge into burning buildings in T-shirts and sandals, they do everything needed to minimize risk and maximize success. Are they any less heroic for doing so?

Which is more heroic, the deed or the intention?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Roll d%. has the same effect as the arguments anyway

So true, and true for so many issues.

 

[PaulofCthulhu]

1. Do you need to die to be a hero?

I would say, no, I'm sure there are/were plenty of living heroes.

2. Do you need to succeed to be a hero?

I would say, yes, otherwise it can be categorised as a brave 'attempt'. I don't think "Captain Failure" is big-selling comic book.

The above are very much generalisations of course. "Heroes" are ultimately in the eye of the beholder. (e.g. see 'Freedom Fighters' vs. 'Terrorists')

You can still be a hero if you have a safty net, because usually those "safety nets" are not guaranteed to succeed.

Evil people can be brave too, (anti) heroes to their fellows even, because, when you boil it down - it's about overcoming fear/surmounting great risk. Just my two-penneth anyway.

 

[Gentlegamer]

See, that is not true. Firefighters have PLENTY of equipment and training that helps them battle fires, police carry firearms and wear Kevlar in dangerous situations, and the US armed forces has some of the best training, gear, and backup of all the nations of the world. I dare you not to call any of them a hero.

Firefighters and other civil servants that risk death and injury for others are heroes. No debate there.

D&D PCs are like these folk. They are better than farmers in the realm of adventuring because (by training, generics, or magic) they are better suited to the job. They have the best gear, training, and are slightly less risk-adverse than the typical folk.

Now, in D&D if I do something dangerous (attack an ogre or rescue a drowning child) I see no fault in minimizing my personal risk. That includes maximizing my chances of success. That's what these folks above do every day. They don't charge into burning buildings in T-shirts and sandals, they do everything needed to minimize risk and maximize success. Are they any less heroic for doing so?

Which is more heroic, the deed or the intention?

You're talking about narrative heroics, which is fine. However, if the player knows there is some built-in mechanic that can be relied upon to save his bacon, an action taken relying on this knowledge isn't heroic, in my opinion.

That is, taking in-game actions that mitigate risk is fine and heroic, relying on hard-coded game rules to mitigate risk is also fine, but not heroic.

 

[jasin]

I'm speaking to the "safety net" of inherent rules that you allude to in a RPG. You essentially said you're now free to act heroically because the rules themselves provide a safety net. Taking an action knowing the rules themselves will save you or greatly mitigate your failure isn't acting heroically (as a player).

As a player, you aren't acting heroically even when there is a significant, unknown risk of failure for the charater, since you're still doing nothing more than sitting in someone's basement pretending to be an elf.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is, taking in-game actions that mitigate risk is fine and heroic, relying on hard-coded game rules to mitigate risk is also fine, but not heroic.

Nothing in a RPG creates a real risk. You can only use your PC. The player is not heroic, but his character is. The character is constantly risking his life - even if he has a "reroll your save" or hit points. Because things can still go wrong.

But the player does not risk anything "meaningful" that his actions could be deemed heroic. The PC doesn't necessarily know that he can jump the chasm in 19 out of 20 situations. He just knows that if he falls, he will plummet to death. Of course, if he has a feather fall spell prepared, his action might seem less heroic. (but then, what if he might need the feather fall in another case, where there is no one to rescue but himself?)

I do not think heroismn always requires risking your own life. Life is just the highest think you can sacrifice to someone else. But it can already be heroismn if you just help someone (and possibly save his life) without expecting anything in return (except the warm, fuzzy feeling of having done something good).