Snoweel - I'm sure you're right that he didn't, at that moment, know it was foolish. Much less athletic people routinely jump into raging torrents, often to recover family pets or even someone else's pet! People seem to have a hard time evaluating the risk from jumping into rivers, probably due to undercurrents or something. Your hero was foolish, but certainly brave. There are worse things to be.
What Makes a Hero?
- Thread starter Death_Jester
- Start date
re
Hero's do the right thing because it is the right thing to do irregardless of risk to one's own life or position. A powerful sense of moral duty drives heroes to do the right thing. The right thing is often obvious, but it can't just be the individual's personal opinion on what is the right thing to do, but a universal idea of the right thing to do. For example, a person who witnesses a mob murder, then testifies against the mob even though he or she knows they are probably going to be killed is a hero. This is how I play heroic characters in D&D.
For example, a paladin character of mine witnessed a suicidal gnome throw himself into a pit of fire during a great battle in an evil fire temple. My paladin requested a fly spell from the cleric, then flew into the pit,grappled the gnome, and flew out with him. He rescued the gnome because it was the right thing to do irregardless of the battle around him or the danger to his own life.
Being a hero is often a mind set as well as being in the right place at the right time. You really have to have a high regard for the lives of others and a well-developed sense of moral duty so that the first thing that occurs to you is the right moral action to take. For example, if you are rescuing a child from a burning building, you can't be more afraid of the fire than concerned about rescuing the child, or you won't even try to rescue the child. Without a powerful sense of moral duty driving you, you probably won't be apt to do what is necessary to become a hero.
I would say a very important trait of heroes is a powerful sense of moral duty.
Hero's do the right thing because it is the right thing to do irregardless of risk to one's own life or position. A powerful sense of moral duty drives heroes to do the right thing. The right thing is often obvious, but it can't just be the individual's personal opinion on what is the right thing to do, but a universal idea of the right thing to do. For example, a person who witnesses a mob murder, then testifies against the mob even though he or she knows they are probably going to be killed is a hero. This is how I play heroic characters in D&D.
For example, a paladin character of mine witnessed a suicidal gnome throw himself into a pit of fire during a great battle in an evil fire temple. My paladin requested a fly spell from the cleric, then flew into the pit,grappled the gnome, and flew out with him. He rescued the gnome because it was the right thing to do irregardless of the battle around him or the danger to his own life.
Being a hero is often a mind set as well as being in the right place at the right time. You really have to have a high regard for the lives of others and a well-developed sense of moral duty so that the first thing that occurs to you is the right moral action to take. For example, if you are rescuing a child from a burning building, you can't be more afraid of the fire than concerned about rescuing the child, or you won't even try to rescue the child. Without a powerful sense of moral duty driving you, you probably won't be apt to do what is necessary to become a hero.
I would say a very important trait of heroes is a powerful sense of moral duty.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Dogbrain said:
I still have a sticking point in that part of the "hero" definition, and I was wondering if you can clarify. Why is it a necessary part of being a "hero" to get public acknowledgement? To me, that part is unnecessary in order to be selfless even in the face of harm or loss, and therefore a hero.
Last edited:
Henry said:
One of the necessary functions of a hero is to be an inspiration. A thoroughly unknown "hero", no matter how fine and virtuous, inspires nobody. Were publicity absolutely meaningless, we would not have the concept of the "unsung hero" at all. If publicity is meaningless to heroism, then it could not be tragic or unfortunate if any "hero" is ever "unsung". That we feel the need to honor such unsung heroes shows that our concept of "hero" includes publicity.
It's like the difference between honor and virtue. Honor is a primarily public thing. Virtue is primarily private. This is why one fought "duels of honor" and not "duels of virtue". The REALITY of truthfulness or loyalty meant nothing in matters of honor if the PERCEPTION were of dishonesty or treason. As it has been said before: Honor is supposed to be the homage paid to virtue. Likewise, heroic status is supposed to be the homage paid to great achievement and sacrifice.
Mercule
Adventurer
Publicity is not required for heroism. The actions a hero takes would usually inspire others, if they were known. But inspiration is not required of a hero -- it is an incidental.
I'm going to go with the general statement that a hero is one who does what is right because it is right and for no other reason or consideration. It is about virtue, more than honor (using Dogbrain's terms).
I'm going to go with the general statement that a hero is one who does what is right because it is right and for no other reason or consideration. It is about virtue, more than honor (using Dogbrain's terms).
Henry
Autoexreginated
Thanks for the perspective, D.B.; I may not agree that it's important to the qualification of "hero", but I certainly understand the point made.
I just think that it says more about our society, that it places importance on a hero's virtues being sung, than about the hero himself. In a society where selflessness were more common, it would be more shocking to behave unheroically, than to leave the hero unpraised.
I just think that it says more about our society, that it places importance on a hero's virtues being sung, than about the hero himself. In a society where selflessness were more common, it would be more shocking to behave unheroically, than to leave the hero unpraised.
Henry said:
Actually using non-modern cultural norms is a great way to mess player heads--but warn the players beforehand.
An honor-based culture can beget a really nasty, awful sort of society, wherein reputation means everything and substance is only necessary to the point wherein it maintains reputation. As I tell people from time to time, if you want to get an idea of how that whole "honor" thing duels were fought over actually worked, look at modern street gangs. In my reading, I have only come across three duels actually fought over the "honor of a lady", and one of those duels was a rematch over the same lady.
Now, Julie de Maupin fought many a duel over "honor", but hardly what one would call the "honor of a lady", given her general proclivities (she seduced a nun, worked as a professional duelist/hit-woman, bedded a Duc when she was sixteen, bedded an Elector of the Holy Roman Empire some time later, etc.--but at least she also managed to maintain a career as the Prima Donna of the Paris Opera--as a contralto!)
Similar Threads
