Where have all the heroes gone?

[DarkKestral]

Another thing about the sort of "Shining Armor Hero" type is that, ultimately, to be interesting, they MUST have a dramatic tragedy. That can be a 'fall from grace', an 'ultimate failure', a moral dilemma, (BBEG: "save the world or save your sister. you choose." is an example of this kind of dilemma.) or something that essentially says "You can't be perfect." This is why a lot of people find paladins unfun. This is why a lot of people prefer anti-heroes. Odysseus is probably one of only a few stories where the protagonist isn't really directly flawed as part of his character. Instead, he just has the wrath of gods against him. Arthur and Lancelot were constantly sleeping around. Percival was an idiot and lost the Holy Grail as a result. Beowulf dies because he can't give up fighting. Superman can't deal with women. Batman has killed people on at least a few occasions out of pure revenge. Same with Spiderman. Most epic heroes suffer problems because they are imperfect, and that's what keeps them interesting.

As to the example of the Adventurers and the King with the Missing Prince--

Depending on the worldview, if you stick to the basic assumption of D&D that Magic Is Rare And Very Expensive and have a truly feudal system with nobles having a fair amount of autonomy and protection from the king, adventurers with the right dispensations (temporal or religious) or noble status could certainly wage war on the reigning monarch, and an NG monarch could be dethroned in favor of the obviously more powerful (and therefore more politically dangerous) cadre of adventurers, because the noble houses would see that they'd be better aligned with the people most likely to win a major war. If they have noble backing by the right houses (and if adventurers are nobles, that's possible) then a real "medieval Europe"-a-like would mean that they'd be pretty much immune to anything but the king waging all out economic or physical war on the nobles that support them. This is likely to fail, as the other nobles and the church both probably have a vested interest in ensuring the king doesn't get too powerful.

On the other hand, assuming the king is high leveled, and Magic Is Relatively Common But Not Exactly Cheap... and that the king's truly got all these impressive magical defenses... then why did he let his son get kidnapped? Most kings were smart enough to ensure their heirs were protected with considerable amounts of force. Furthermore, if he himself is so powerful and spends so much of his time away from his homelands (a sure sign he probably doesn't want to be there in the first place...) why doesn't he adventure himself to find his son? Or get his 20th level friends to do so, since they apparently have some time? Why is he hiring? Why isn't he just commanding his knights to return the Prince? Each of those 'amazing protections' you put in only made the situation seem more and more implausible. Permanent 5th spells are expensive. Multiple permanent 9th level spells are the kind of things that countries are bought and sold over. At the point you mentioned, I'd (perfectly in-character) would be asking "Why are you thinking you'll be hiring us, if you're not willing to pay? You knew we are mercenaries, and that taking us out will cause all of our information to be leaked to appropriate enemies of yours..." which would not be something easily defended against, like attacks on the king's person would.


EDIT: IMCs, Divine Right of Kings is best summed up as... "It could be true. But then again, Gods sometimes take away favor. Perhaps it's MY divine right to be the next king..." so in the end, it's up the the PCs to figure out whether or not starting a war is something that they should do. This is because I like my gods relatively neutral, distant, and generally uninterested in the affairs of mortals.

Also, Nobles are likely to actually have power relative to the King, and the affairs between countries are either kept in royal bedchambers, in the throne room, or on the battlefield. There aren't any transnational organizations that the royalty belong to, other than the churches. Diplomats are common sights in courts, but royals are stubborn and tend to be at least somewhat greedy about power, even if they are both LG.. so backstabbing happens anyway. Needless to say, mercenaries fit in such a world.

 

[Faraer]

Tell your player that he is not playing a protagonist. He is playing an antagonist. In "the movie" of your campaign, the audience will not empathize with his character. They will be rooting for the other characters (multiple protagonists), and his character will be playing the (admittedly important) role of antagonist.

And then simply tell him sorry, but the role of antagonist is your personal purview.

That's how I see it. An evil protagonist is structurally nonsense.

I also agree that the practical problem is that this player is refusing to cooperate with the DM and other players as people, and until he does you shouldn't waste your time trying to work around his problems.

Have you guys ever heard about Gygax's adventures? Practically none of those guys even qualified as neutral. Robilar, Mordie etc werent nice folks or working towards redemption. This is not a new trend.

The PCs in the Greyhawk Campaign were mostly good or neutral, except for Robilar and Erac's Cousin. Mordenkainen is firmly neutral.

 

[Seeten]

Its ok to have an evil protagonist, but NOT the evil character in the OP. An evil character whose family was killed by Red Dragons, who believes he needs to wipe out all evil dragons to protect himself, and his loved ones, willing to go to extremes to do it might be fun to play, and might fit in well with the party, helping Bahamut.

A turncoat traitor is a terrible idea. Its bad to play an all evil campaign with a good character, its bad to play an all good campaign with a traitor. In fact, trying to hurt or undermine the party is ALWAYS bad, unless under magical duress.

Ruining other peoples fun is not excusable. I may be the biggest proponent of evil characters and campaigns on this board, but I never play a character, evil or otherwise, with designs on hurting or otherwise harming any other PC.

 

[Kristivas]

Another thing about the sort of "Shining Armor Hero" type is that, ultimately, to be interesting, they MUST have a dramatic tragedy.

I saw a disturbing trend with this in my gaming group. EVERYONE'S character had his village burned down by Orcs. EVERYONE'S character had their girlfriend/sibling/whatever kidnapped by the BBEG. EVERYONE'S character was torn inside and mulled like Drizzt.

Imagine a character who was born to parents who died of natural causes. No brothers or sisters to be kidnapped. His village still stands, not being razed by Orcs. No overly dramatic happenings in life. No real love interest (yet). No 'cool facial scars'. Decides to go adventuring and help these people he met, who do have such problems. He helps them, but he's not internally agonizing over thier plights. No brooding. He's just trying to be a good guy, do the right thing, and help out people. If he gets paid, all the better! No over-developed sense of vengeance; he's got more to live for than to kill someone for some horrible wrongdoing.

People might call that bland, but it's what you make it. You can be just as interesting as the guy who's Mother was stolen by Zal'gon'mok, Overlord of the Abyss, to be bred with and spawn a demonic army. It's less about the background drama, and more about what you do with the character after the game started imo.

 

[Grunj]

Something that bugs me is the mercenary attitude of the NPCs in too many D&D games. I sympathize with the poster who wished to just once be paid a fair wage for a fair day's adventuring. And what's up with divine spellcasters?

The LG ranger stumbles into town, crawling the last few yards to lie panting at the foot of the Temple of Goodness and Light.

"Healing, your Grace!" he pleads,"for myself and my companions!"

"That will require a donation of 100 gold from each of you," the prelate, Augustus the Holy, replies.

WTF? Well, according to the PHB and the DMG, that's how it's supposed to work. Never mind that clerical healing spells require little or nothing in the way of material components. Never mind that a deity devoted to mercy and charity should encourage the clerics to heal for free.

Well, you say, the clerics deserve to make something for their effort.

But which is more important to the deity, gold or converts? A man whose child has been healed by a cleric will probably be in the front row of the temple the next holy day and he will be tithing whenever possible. A clerical spell is a channeling of divine energy through the deity's servant. To treat the event the same way as a dockside whore negotiating with a drunken sailor is pretty messed up.

I've played in too many games where every NPC is out to chisel the players. Want directions? That will cost you ten gold. Is it surprising that the players become as mercenary as the people they interact with?

They say charity starts at home. In a D&D game, it also starts with the DM. If NPCs do favors for the players, chances are the players will do favors for them.

 

[haakon1]

Beowulf dies because he can't give up fighting.

Beowulf died as an old man defending his kingdom from a ravaging dragon. He got the job done, but died doing it -- a heroic death indeed.

As to the example of the Adventurers and the King with the Missing Prince--

Depending on the worldview, if you stick to the basic assumption of D&D that Magic Is Rare And Very Expensive and have a truly feudal system with nobles having a fair amount of autonomy and protection from the king, adventurers with the right dispensations (temporal or religious) or noble status could certainly wage war on the reigning monarch, and an NG monarch could be dethroned in favor of the obviously more powerful (and therefore more politically dangerous) cadre of adventurers, because the noble houses would see that they'd be better aligned with the people most likely to win a major war. If they have noble backing by the right houses (and if adventurers are nobles, that's possible) then a real "medieval Europe"-a-like would mean that they'd be pretty much immune to anything but the king waging all out economic or physical war on the nobles that support them. This is likely to fail, as the other nobles and the church both probably have a vested interest in ensuring the king doesn't get too powerful.

The scenario I was reacting to the idea that PC's could just as easily do the adventure, or decide to make the heir a zombie, rape the princess, kill the king, and take over the kingdom. My reaction as a DM: no, they can't. I would make it effectively impossible through "in character" challenges they couldn't possibly overcome.

If somebody wanted to rules-lawyer those challenges and argue with me on why they are the indisputable masters of the universe and why I have to DM their "Uday Hussein Fantasy Hour" for them, it's just not something I'd tolerate. Thank goodness, I've never had to deal with this in 24 years of gaming. Most players just want to play, not become Jeffrey Dallmer, Master of the Universe.

On the other hand, assuming the king is high leveled, and Magic Is Relatively Common But Not Exactly Cheap... and that the king's truly got all these impressive magical defenses...

Magic is not common in my campaign, just as ICBM's are not common in the real world, Stargates and interplanetary starships are not common on Earth in the Stargate universe, and Death Stars are not common in the Star Wars universe. The thing is, the government has all these things, because the government has greater resources than the average homeless guy who wanders around killing orcs for a living.

then why did he let his son get kidnapped? Most kings were smart enough to ensure their heirs were protected with considerable amounts of force.

Because the first guy posting this said the kid went missing. Stuff happens. Go see "The Hunt for Red October" or "Broken Arrow" for how a powerful government could lose something important.

Furthermore, if he himself is so powerful and spends so much of his time away from his homelands (a sure sign he probably doesn't want to be there in the first place...) why doesn't he adventure himself to find his son? Or get his 20th level friends to do so, since they apparently have some time? Why is he hiring? Why isn't he just commanding his knights to return the Prince?

The actual answer from my campaign is because there's a war on. He's busy at the front, as is his army and many of his allies. His castle is essentially the Pentagon, and the 20th level dudes are there healing the wounded brought back from the front and building a gate to a distant allied fortress.

Each of those 'amazing protections' you put in only made the situation seem more and more implausible. Permanent 5th spells are expensive. Multiple permanent 9th level spells are the kind of things that countries are bought and sold over.

It seems a lot more plausible to me than the idea that the PC's can take over the kingdom at will, unopposed.

EDIT: IMCs, Divine Right of Kings is best summed up as... "It could be true. But then again, Gods sometimes take away favor. Perhaps it's MY divine right to be the next king..." so in the end, it's up the the PCs to figure out whether or not starting a war is something that they should do. This is because I like my gods relatively neutral, distant, and generally uninterested in the affairs of mortals.

Me too. But if behavior like this (distasteful, obscene, nihilistic vandalism of the campaign world, in a silly preening attempt to prove you rule all), I wouldn't tolerate it. I wouldn't hesitate to say "This action is the equivalent of jumping in a volcano and trying to swim in lava just to prove how awesome your Fort save is. It has no place in this game, and I'm not interested in whatever rules you want to twist to claim it does. If you insist, the character will perish."

Political manouvering is one thing, but a direct assault on the king just because you figure it's easy and it's fun to push everybody around? Ummm, no, you have miscalculated.

 

[haakon1]

I saw a disturbing trend with this in my gaming group. EVERYONE'S character had his village burned down by Orcs. EVERYONE'S character had their girlfriend/sibling/whatever kidnapped by the BBEG. EVERYONE'S character was torn inside and mulled like Drizzt.

Imagine a character who was born to parents who died of natural causes. No brothers or sisters to be kidnapped. His village still stands, not being razed by Orcs. No overly dramatic happenings in life. No real love interest (yet). No 'cool facial scars'. Decides to go adventuring and help these people he met, who do have such problems. He helps them, but he's not internally agonizing over thier plights. No brooding. He's just trying to be a good guy, do the right thing, and help out people. If he gets paid, all the better! No over-developed sense of vengeance; he's got more to live for than to kill someone for some horrible wrongdoing.

People might call that bland, but it's what you make it. You can be just as interesting as the guy who's Mother was stolen by Zal'gon'mok, Overlord of the Abyss, to be bred with and spawn a demonic army. It's less about the background drama, and more about what you do with the character after the game started imo.

Nod. I think it's fear of this that leads to so many PC's being orphans.

There's no "dramatic requirement" that heroes be "haunted" or in revenge mode. Think of Aragorn, Legolas, Frodo, Bilbo, and Faramir -- heroic heroes all. Think of the heroes in "13th Warrior", or Tom Hanks' character in "Saving Private Ryan", other Greatest Generation characters like the regular guys in "Band of Brothers" or "Flags of Our Fathers" or even-Vietnam-based "We Were Soldiers", or Kirk and Picard, or the Sam Carter character in "Stargate SG1". Good and not haunted doesn't mean uninteresting. There are definitely archetypes out there for the character who is doing the right thing because it's gotta be done and he's the best man for the job -- these characters range from the noble warrior types like Bulvy/Beowulf and Aragorn to the unlikely hero like Bilbo or Sam.

Their conflicts might involve overcoming fear, or thinking they're not worthy, or overcoming physical and intellectual challenges. It's not all about "fighting the demons inside to keep down my overwhelming urge to kill all sentient beings and ascend as the god of pwnage".

 

[haakon1]

Something that bugs me is the mercenary attitude of the NPCs in too many D&D games. I sympathize with the poster who wished to just once be paid a fair wage for a fair day's adventuring. And what's up with divine spellcasters?

The LG ranger stumbles into town, crawling the last few yards to lie panting at the foot of the Temple of Goodness and Light.

"Healing, your Grace!" he pleads,"for myself and my companions!"

"That will require a donation of 100 gold from each of you," the prelate, Augustus the Holy, replies.

WTF? Well, according to the PHB and the DMG, that's how it's supposed to work. Never mind that clerical healing spells require little or nothing in the way of material components. Never mind that a deity devoted to mercy and charity should encourage the clerics to heal for free.

I'm not sure that's actually what's intended in the rules. I am certain that a DM should play the NPCs "in character".

An LG cleric who's an associate of the PC's and helped them plan out their mission is as likely IMC to charge for healing as a military medic is to ask for an insurance card from a wounded soldier. There's normal peacetime pricing, and then there's war zone necessities. Of course, the PC's should also aid and/or donate to the good church in town, but it's not a quid pro quo thing.

Well, you say, the clerics deserve to make something for their effort.

But which is more important to the deity, gold or converts? A man whose child has been healed by a cleric will probably be in the front row of the temple the next holy day and he will be tithing whenever possible. A clerical spell is a channeling of divine energy through the deity's servant. To treat the event the same way as a dockside whore negotiating with a drunken sailor is pretty messed up.

Indeed, but if the PC's are almost exactly drunken sailors -- neutral mercenaries just resting up between adventures, over rich vagrants who may never be back and have nothing to offer but gold -- it makes sense that they couldn't get healing for free. In that case, it's being kind to let them get healing at all -- you'd think there would normally be more deserving cases.

Perhaps you can think of it as an ATM service fee for these PCs -- we'll let you use us, but if you'd converted to our religion, you wouldn't be getting the $2 transaction fee.

I've played in too many games where every NPC is out to chisel the players. Want directions? That will cost you ten gold. Is it surprising that the players become as mercenary as the people they interact with?

They say charity starts at home. In a D&D game, it also starts with the DM. If NPCs do favors for the players, chances are the players will do favors for them.

Yes, I've seen this in action. I guess it depends on the sort of campaign you want to run, but if you run a strictly dog-eat-dog mercenary world, don't be surprised if the PC's adapt to that.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Nod. I think it's fear of this that leads to so many PC's being orphans.

That, and the type of DM who sees "emotional attachment = opportunity to manipulate and torment the PC."

 

[haakon1]

Maybe it would help the players if you gave some examples of "good guy" characters. It might just be a lack of imagination/knowledge.

I'll start off with ten, but it'd be cool if people add more:

1) The draftee. You didn't want this war, but this fight needs fighting. You're not going to compromise your personal moral values, but you'll get the job done as best you can -- best in both efficient and moral senses -- so you can go home to your family. Archetypal example: Tom Hanks character in "Saving Private Ryan", most characters in any "Greatest Generation" style WWII movie.

2) "With great power comes great responsibility." You realized you were destined for something more -- not everyone is given the powers of paladin/is a genius at wizardry, etc. To be a true hero, you know you must uses your gifts to benefit the less fortunate. Examples: Maybe the Lone Ranger?

3) Noblesse oblige. You are born a leader of your people. It is expected of you that you will fight and if necessary die for them. For this reason, they are loyal to your cause and respect your role, though perhaps they don't know who you are, because you're away from home or undercover for some reason. Examples: Odysseus, Aragorn

4) The second son. You are the second son of your noble family. You will not inherit. To make your way in the world, you need to get out there and do service to the realm, for the reputation of your family and from your own personal need to prove your worth. Example: Many real world medieval to early-modern warriors, explorers, etc.

5) The frontiersman. The fight came to you, but you'll see it through. With more power comes more ability to defend the defenseless.

6) The redeemed villain. You have seen the error of your ways, and now fight for good, partially to undo the harm you caused, and partially because you always knew good was right, even when you did wrong. Examples: St. Paul, Xena, Te'alq in Stargate SG-1, Lando Calrissian, Shane

7) The accidental hero. You rose to the occassion, maybe because you always secretly wanted to be an adventurer. Examples: Bilbo Baggins

8) For your brothers. Somehow he/they haven't themselves into this mess. You will see them through. Examples: Samwise Gamgee, lots of "Greatest Generation" characters

9) A credit to your race. Your people are looked down on. By being a hero, you can inspire them, and prove you and your people are just as good as anyone else. Examples: Most of the main characters in "Glory" and "Windtalkers", the American Indian in "Flags of Our Fathers".

10) The reluctant hero. You're bookish and slow moving. Or a cowardly. Maybe small. But you are needed in this fight, and you will do your best, discovering reservoirs of courage no one knew you had -- not even you. Examples: Andre Braugher's character in Glory, the translator in "Saving Private Ryan" (who also turned out to have a dark side), Rachel Weisz librarian in "The Mummy", the hero in "The Red Badge of Courage".

I'll stop at 10 to give other folks a chance.