Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Morrow" data-source="post: 2149521" data-attributes="member: 27012">For whatever it's worth, I feel much the same way.&nbsp; I'm not all that interested in running a party of villains (nor do I want to run a PC in such a group) and a GM isn't obliged to run scenarios for characters they don't enjoy running.That said, I tend to draw my line for &quot;heroes&quot; at what I call &quot;action movie movality&quot;.&nbsp; That means that I'm willing to run and play Neutral heroes (so long as they don't get too sloppy with the lives of innocents) and I'm willing to give them some flexibility when it comes to dealing with the bad guys and their minions.&nbsp; So while I might not have considered what happened in your game a hero's finest hour, it wouldn't have bothered me all that much because the heroes in action movies do that sort of thing all the time.&nbsp; I'm more concerned with how they deal with innocents and bystanders (e.g., the example of not stopping a rape would have bothered me).Out of curiosity, do you have the same sort of gut response to, say, James Bond killing innocent Russian police officers in Goldeneye (I keep using that example because it did bother me) or the George Clooney character in The Peacemaker executing several bad guys with a gun while they were trapped in a wrecked car (that scene didn't bother me but I was amazed at how blunt it was)?&nbsp; And, no, I'm not calling all protagonists heroes (e.g., the protagonists in Pulp Fiction are not what I'd call heroes, though Butch might qualify).What makes such a person a &quot;hero&quot; and not a bad guy?&nbsp; The bad guys are all about hurting innocents while the good guys are fighting to protect them from the bad guys.&nbsp; The good guys do have compassion, even if it's limited to innocent folks and they have none for the bad guys.&nbsp; And I think that distinction makes all the difference in the world.&nbsp; Of course I'm not personally a moral relativist and YMMV.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Morrow, post: 2149521, member: 27012"] For whatever it's worth, I feel much the same way. I'm not all that interested in running a party of villains (nor do I want to run a PC in such a group) and a GM isn't obliged to run scenarios for characters they don't enjoy running. That said, I tend to draw my line for "heroes" at what I call "action movie movality". That means that I'm willing to run and play Neutral heroes (so long as they don't get too sloppy with the lives of innocents) and I'm willing to give them some flexibility when it comes to dealing with the bad guys and their minions. So while I might not have considered what happened in your game a hero's finest hour, it wouldn't have bothered me all that much because the heroes in action movies do that sort of thing all the time. I'm more concerned with how they deal with innocents and bystanders (e.g., the example of not stopping a rape would have bothered me). Out of curiosity, do you have the same sort of gut response to, say, James Bond killing innocent Russian police officers in [u]Goldeneye[/u] (I keep using that example because it did bother me) or the George Clooney character in [u]The Peacemaker[/u] executing several bad guys with a gun while they were trapped in a wrecked car (that scene didn't bother me but I was amazed at how blunt it was)? And, no, I'm not calling all protagonists heroes (e.g., the protagonists in [u]Pulp Fiction[/u] are not what I'd call heroes, though Butch might qualify). What makes such a person a "hero" and not a bad guy? The bad guys are all about hurting innocents while the good guys are fighting to protect them from the bad guys. The good guys do have compassion, even if it's limited to innocent folks and they have none for the bad guys. And I think that distinction makes all the difference in the world. Of course I'm not personally a moral relativist and YMMV. [/QUOTE]

Verification