The Heroic Impulse: Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

[Ktulu]

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.

Thanks for that piece of insight.


I think the safety-net is meant in terms of no danger. Despite all the firefighter's gear, he's still in danger when he enters that house. If the fire were to shut off the moment he fell, then he's got a safety net (like the training houses).

A hero still has his gear (sword or armor, magic pendant, etc..), but the safety net is the "respawn" or the god coming in at the last second to protect your character.

The hero doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) get that luxury. He should know he risks danger, death, and the like to do the amazing. If anyone can do the deed, it's not a heroic act. (by can, I mean without fear, without skill).

Webster defines hero as:

1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage
2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3plural usually heros : submarine 2
4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol


Which basically breaks down to a special person (descent, or ability) who can do noble things or courageous things. He is the central character.

Therefore, failure can still be considered heroic, if the deed being attempted was for Noble cause.

 

[jasin]

Thanks for that piece of insight.

Do you really think it's insightful or are you just being sarcastic?

I think the safety-net is meant in terms of no danger. Despite all the firefighter's gear, he's still in danger when he enters that house. If the fire were to shut off the moment he fell, then he's got a safety net (like the training houses).

A hero still has his gear (sword or armor, magic pendant, etc..), but the safety net is the "respawn" or the god coming in at the last second to protect your character.

So D&D characters are heroic, right? In every game I've ever played in, there was always danger. Sometimes we had good plans, good gear, access to resurrection magic, allies with access to resurrection magic... but always there was at least some chance of such catastrophic failure that no recovery would be possible.

Webster defines hero as:

1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b: an illustrious warrior c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d: one that shows great courage

Even if you argue that the player knowing there is little danger means that the character isn't showing courage, all D&D characters I've seen qualify for a) and b) and most qualify for c).

2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement

All characters I've ever seen qualify.

3plural usually heros : submarine 2

No character I've seen qualifies.

4: an object of extreme admiration and devotion : idol

Slightly less then half here.

By M-W's definitions, D&D characters appear to be heroes after all.

 

[Ktulu]

By M-W's definitions, D&D characters appear to be heroes after all.

That's where I was going with it all

 

[jasin]

That's where I was going with it all

Eh, I guess with all the implications that it's only heroism if you're hurling yourself into danger without regard for chances of success, I must've misinterpreted your point. Sorry.

 

[Ktulu]

Not entirely. I was originally arguing the point that just having skill makes you a hero. Technically, the definition states that is true, so I could be considered wrong, there.

Though, my point was more that having great skill but not utilizing it beyond normal means would not be heroic (It's like having the most advanced computer system you can imagine and playing solitare on it. That's a waste.)

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Ok. Simple RPG.

Roll a d6. 1-3 is death, 4-6 is success.

If my PC does something heroic (lets save that drowning kid) the GM asks me to make a check. I roll my d6, knowing the PC has a 50% chance of death.

Is that heroic?

What if he's a trained swimmer, which gives him a +1 to the die roll (1d6+1). Is it still as heroic?

What if he has a wetsuit on and is a trained swimmer (+2, 1d6+2). Is he less heroic now?

What if he ate a large plate of pork-n-beans a minute ago and risks getting cramps (-1, 1d6-1)? Is he now more heroic?

What if he sold his soul to Lou Cipher and can re-roll any roll of "1" on the d6? Still heroic?

Note that all examples still have a risk of death. There is no death-flag here; succeed or die. However, your chances of one or the other changes greatly in each example.

IMHO, each character is still staring down death to do something good, and is therefore a hero. There is nothing more-or-less heroic involved with any of them. Each is a hero because he tries, and the game mechanics merely represent potential boons and hindrances numerically. Its the reason I don't run to a burning house with a bucket of water when the firemen are there, they have the "boons" to enhance success and mitigate death. I don't.

Training and preparedness (even when it comes in the form of *game mechanics*) doesn't change the heroic nature of the act.

 

[Jack7]

Merry Chistmas, and Thanks

I just wanted to say Thank You to everyone posting and sending me experience points comments and what not for the threads I've started lately.

Unfortunately I've got old buddies and friends in for the holidays and we've been catching up, and I've been seeing their children, and bumming around with my own family, and having a ball. I've been very busy so don't take it wrong if I'm not around to respond to comments and don't personally say thanks you for all the kind words, experience point whoopla, discussion, or even the interesting arguments.

Merry Christmas ladies and gents, enjoy your holidays, and Happy New Year if we don't cross paths again before then. And a better year soon than the one before, though all the way around the past one was pretty good for me.

See ya,

Jack.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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


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


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

A 1e 15th level character cannot swim any better than a 1st level character, nor can he climb better (unless he's a thief). He's simply better trained with a weapon and has greater survivability.

AD&D characters have no super powers. In 3e, a rogue can literally tumble through a wall of force and swim up a waterfall. AD&D characters have 3 things that separate them from commoners. hit points, thac0, and better saves. Sure, the mechanics of the game make them better suited to survive SOME things, but nowhere near the way later editions do.

 

[billd91]

A 1e 15th level character cannot swim any better than a 1st level character, nor can he climb better (unless he's a thief). He's simply better trained with a weapon and has greater survivability.

And a 15th level character in 3e might not be better than a 1st level character at a particular task. It depends on how you choose to develop your abilities.

Depends also, for some things, on whether or not you're using the Dungeoneers or Wilderness Survival Guides. A lot of tasks in those books depended on the character's level, as I recall (I don't have the books with me right now, but I could look them up later).

In fact, that was one aspect of the survival guides I did NOT like (and don't like in 4e). I'm content with people choosing to invest in an ability and get better and have that ability to invest resources be based on level. But what I didn't want was an 80 year old, with low strength and dex, arch-mage being better at throwing a grappling hook than a young and fit ranger even if he is a lot wetter behind the ears. In other words, I didn't want the difference between those characters to be level alone. I don't want it to even be level + a little bit of stat. I want the difference to be the choices made by the character as he develops his abilities.

 

[Remathilis]

A 1e 15th level character cannot swim any better than a 1st level character,

Water breathing (cleric 3, wizard 3)

nor can he climb better (unless he's a thief).

Spider climb (wizard 1)

He's simply better trained with a weapon and has greater survivability.

And spellcasting, and tracking (if a ranger), and turning undead, and...

AD&D characters have no super powers.

except for the ranger, paladin, magic-user, cleric, druid, assassin, bard, illusionist and thieves over 10th level.

In 3e, a rogue can literally tumble through a wall of force

Actually, Escape Artist. DC 120.

and swim up a waterfall.

DC 80.

AD&D characters have 3 things that separate them from commoners. hit points, thac0, and better saves.

And spellcasting, and weapon specialization, and thief skills, and turn undead, and lay on hands, and favored enemies, and unarmed attack bonuses, and bardic knowledge, and shapechanging, and...

Sure, the mechanics of the game make them better suited to survive SOME things, but nowhere near the way later editions do.

Because its so glorious to slay Tiamat and not be able to climb up to her lair for the treasure.