Worlds of Design: The New Heroes

The way heroes are portrayed has changed. Multimedia previously positioned heroes as muscle-bound monsters or barely-clothed sirens. Things have changed for the better, and it affects how we think of our characters in role-playing games.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

Physicality​

Instead of the big burly male heroes of the past (influenced by John Wayne and Arnold Schwarzwenegger movie success), wiry fellows are now more common in modern media, sometimes androgynous (likely due to the influence of Japanese anime/manga). This is more obvious in video games than in tabletop RPGs.

Female heroes have changed too. Decades ago, right back into the Pulp age, the common tendency was to depict female adventurers as showing a lot of skin while wearing ineffective bikini-shaped armor. And to depict female non-adventurers as nearly naked. Nor were there many female adventurers, most females (often princesses) were in the story to be rescued. Now heroines look athletic rather than voluptuous, and they're far more capable of saving themselves than in the Pulp era. Female armor actually makes sense, in many cases!

Like tabletop games, characters are increasingly customizable (this is a tenet of how video games are sometimes considered RPGs because you can change your character’s appearance). This often includes physique. You can make your character look however you want of course, but the barbarian archetype (and its progenitor, Conan) now feels like a throwback to an earlier age.

That’s not the only way heroes have changed.

The Heroic Attitude​

Roughly speaking, this attitude difference is about Pulp heroes (pre- and post-war) vs. modern heroes (21st century). The nominal divide in science fiction and fantasy is 1980. For how the Pulp attitude contrasts with more modern attitudes I rely on SF/F author Misha Burnett’s explanation (my emphasis):

"The use of a character’s actions – in opposition to a description of the character’s feelings – should be the primary engine that drives the story. We don’t all agree on what is right and wrong, and what matters to the story is what the character thinks is right and wrong."

This contrasts with a lack of doubt about what is right and what must be done, in modern fiction. Which, oddly enough, seems much different from the real-world polarization and conviction of right and wrong that we see so commonly today.

Heroes act because they see something wrong and feel compelled to make it right. Burnett says:

"Pulp heroes are motivated by love. It may be the sexual love, . . . love of home, of nation, of a way of life, all can compel a character to take up arms against an oppressor."

Like appearance, this changes how we play characters. The lawful alignments of Dungeons & Dragons can feel outdated today, where there is much more of a gray area (and thus, freedom) in a hero’s actions. As an example of how heroes have changed over the years, take the Lord of the Rings.

Lord of the Rings: Books vs. Movies​

The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) books, written between 1937 to 1949, feature an Aragorn who knows what he must do; he's just not sure that he is capable enough to do it given the enormous strength of the enemy. He doesn't have angst about it, he goes on and tries to do it. The book is mostly about Sam (and less, about Frodo), the ordinary person forced by circumstances to become a hero.

Contrast this with the movies (2001-2003). The movies are about Aragorn, not an ordinary person but born to a hereditary nobility. And he is frequently torn by uncertainty about what he should do (and also whether he can accomplish whatever he decides to do).

The Hobbit movies (the Hobbit story was completed 1937) are actually closer to pulp than the LOTR movies, but that may come from the early source material. It’s not just traditional fantasy where heroes have changed.

Space Opera​

In "space opera" I think of a contrast between Jack Campbell's "Lost Fleet" series and spinoffs (which I highly recommend) and Jay Allan's "Blood on the Stars" series. (Both consist of more than a dozen books.)

Campbell's heroes and heroines are like Aragorn in the LOTR books; they know what they have to do, though they're not sure they can do it. What counts is what they do. Allan's heroes and heroines are filled with angst about what they're doing. It's more about feelings than action.

Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek (late 60s) is more or less the equivalent of a D&D paladin, using his charisma to talk down the opposition; more like modern heroes, he prefers talking to fighting.

Luke Skywalker is another Hero in the old mold; though tempted by the Dark Side, he is a quintessential Good Guy. But in Star Wars (1977) we also have a capable heroic heroine in the (still-a-princess) Leia.

Older gamers probably notice this shift simply because they’ve been consuming media for longer. There are upsides and downsides to these changes. On the one hand, our heroes worry far more about motivation and whether an action is right. On the other, women are afforded much more respect for their capabilities now. There’s no right or wrong way to approach these characters, but our modern sensibilities have definitely changed what’s acceptable to be a “hero” in movies, TV, books, and role-playing games.

Your turn: How have heroes in your games changed over the years?

 

[Hussar]

This contrasts with a lack of doubt about what is right and what must be done, in modern fiction.

Umm, could someone unpack this for me, because, it seems that he's saying that in modern fiction, characters are more morally sure of what is right or wrong. Am I misreading that?

Because, that seems backwards to me. Conan never, ever questions the morality of his actions. His actions are always the morally right ones. Compared to more modern fantasy heroes, where there is much, much more moral ambiguity.

 

[Pauper]

While I do agree that the change in heroic motivation LP mentions in his essay has happened, I'm going to disagree on the reason he provides.

For starters, I feel as though his 'bulging biceps' categorization of pulp heroes is a bit simplistic and cherry-picked. Certainly Conan existed, but not every pulp hero was Conan -- if you're referring to the pulp era and not mentioning folks like Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, or Zorro and the Green Hornet, then you're not capturing the full spectrum of pulp heroes. For every Superman, there was at least one if not more Batmen, who despite still being manly men were definitely not bodybuilders. (And for a real counter-example of LP's thesis in this area, contrast Superman as drawn in the comics of the 1930s and 1940s with the way he's drawn in the Justice League and Justice League Unlimited animated series...there's definitely not a trend of making Supes less bulky and more androgynous there.)

But I think the real kicker is that the way heroes and their motivations are portrayed comes less from a change in heroism and more from a change in how villains are portrayed. Contrast the Lord of the Rings (movies or books) with the Avengers movies. In Lord of the Rings, you can pretty much divide most of the characters you meet into Good or Evil camps based solely on whether they've been and how long they've been in contact with something related to Sauron, the Big Bad ultimate Evil of the story. Only Bilbo and Frodo resist easy alignment classification, due to their connection with the ring and being affected but not wholly lost to its corruption. Sauron is Evil and everybody knows it, including Sauron himself; the folks who align with him (Saruman, Wormtongue, etc.) may do so for the best of reasons, but they ultimately reveal their corruption and descent into Evil as well.

Meanwhile, in the Avengers films, we start by meeting Loki, a character who can best be described as 'evil and loving it', who is opposed by our heroes. But as the series goes on, not only do we meet villains who have more sympathetic motivations, all the way up to Thanos in the final films, who one could argue actually has a point to his villainy, even if he's chosen the most simplistic method of achieving it, we even challenge the ideas behind the old-style heroism itself (is 'the American way' still the best way if it's secretly being directed by fascists? is violence the best way to resolve disputes between heroes, or does one hero standing against another automatically turn one of the heroes into a villain?). The idea that a hero can still be the antagonist, and the villain a protagonist goes a lot farther to explain the shifts in the portrayal of modern heroism than the idea that heroes aren't as buff as they used to be.

LP also name-drops Captain Kirk, but the Star Trek franchise actually goes a lot farther toward undoing traditional heroism than reinforcing it; over the course of the various series, and even sometimes within a single series, Star Trek makes the argument that often the best way of dealing with an enemy is to turn that enemy into a friend -- the Klingon antagonists of the original series become allies in the Next Generation, while the Cardassian enemy of Deep Space Nine becomes an ally against the Founders by the end of the series. Part of the reason that alignment really isn't needed in modern D&D comes from this understanding; 'good' and 'evil' aren't necessarily fixed, immutable traits of the universe, but rather how you portray someone with different beliefs and attitudes than you possess.

This doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the 'anti-hero' movement where your good guys are basically only different from the villains in degree but not in kind -- Wolverine has walked that line, but other comic anti-heroes of the '90s strode right across it without irony, putting into question the entire concept of what it means to be a hero.

A greater sense of exploration of the difference between hero/villain and protagonist/antagonist, and a willingness to put more sympathetic and complex villains and antagonists into stories makes a better starting point for this conversation, IMO, than suggesting that anime has made us all more accepting of androgynous heroes as opposed to the old burly manly-men of the past.

--
Pauper

 

[Haffrung]

The internal lives of protagonists, and in particular their emotions, are much more prominent in popular fiction today than decades ago.

In creative writing courses and books, the terms are writing 'hot' vs writing 'cold.' Fiction of the mid-20th century tended to cold, where the protagonist's actions would be described in detail, but their feelings about the events in the story were only dipped into occasionally. Stories were told from the POV of a camera hovering over the shoulder of the protagonist.

Today, most readers want to climb right into the skin of the protagonist. To feel every thought and emotion in an extremely tight POV. This is because as visual media has become dominant, textual fiction has had to provide different appeal to distinguish itself. Getting right into characters' thoughts in a way film and TV can't is one way.

As for clear good vs evil approaches to morality, that tends to run in cycles. We're in a clear good guy vs bad guy stage of the cycle today, probably owing to the polarization of politics. People tend to seek out moral clarity when they're anxious.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not sure that I agree with the overall premise of the article.
(Though, I do agree with what appears to be a push to portray more androgynous and effeminant men.)

Older heroes most certainly did have emotions, internal struggles, and etc; however, the authors of then were (imo) better at showing, rather than telling.

This is one of the reasons why (again, imo) The Mandalorian is a good show. Despite not being able to see the actor's face, emotion is still portrayed through action, body language, and context.

In the Conan novels, one of the primary things explored through the eponymous character is the contrasting struggle of "barbarian" vs "civilization" and the question of whether the guy splitting skulls (but being honest about it) is less "civilized" than the folks using the rule of law (and supposedly civilized society) to screw each other over. It's also worth noting that the story's "hero" prefers fighting, drinking, and womanizing to paladin-esque attitudes. That Conan is mentioned in the original post but not applied to all aspects of the argument is, I think, cherry picking.

Side note: Ironically, Howard's writing also tends to portray female "heroes" -like Belit- as being Conan's equal. While she is scantily clad in some stories, I would argue that her choice of clothing is meant to portray her sexuality as powerful (and what we might call body-positive or sex-positive today,) rather than to make her look soft and vulnerable. Further, Howard once commented that -as someone attempting to sell stories to a magazine- editors requested more of the scantily-clad damsel stuff than he might otherwise write.

Where would you categorize characters portrayed by Clint Eastwood? The Outlaw Josey Wales? Dirty Harry?

Charles Bronson? Steve McQueen?

 

[Von Ether]

Like tabletop games, characters are increasingly customizable (this is a tenet of how video games are sometimes considered RPGs because you can change your character’s appearance). This often includes physique. You can make your character look however you want of course, but the barbarian archetype (and its progenitor, Conan) now feels like a throwback to an earlier age.

Quick tangent: I vote for video game RPGs to be called C(omputer)RPGs again and ttRPGs to be simply called RPGS. It's now getting silly that the original hobby has to have the designator because of inertia. And really it's even a tad quicker by typing one letter (C) vs two (tt).

 

[Marandahir]

Before getting into the subject at hand, I have to say that the uncertainty added by Peter Jackson generally does a disservice to the source material. Theoden flees in fear rather than marching to defend his people, Faramir's whole character crumbles, and while Aragorn becomes a more complicated character, he loses that nobility and strength of purpose. But I digress...



I think it's awesome that we're seeing greater diversity in our heroes. The more people can see themselves in our stories, the better. And it is also important for people that have traditionally only seen themselves in popular heroes (white, male, cishet) to see heroes that don't look like them.

Heck, one thing I've noticed with fan art (and some official D&D art) is that we're now seeing characters depicted wearing glasses. As a kid, I had, what Egon? Now I'm seeing people draw their wizards, artificers, and more with spectacles.

Characters like Milo Thatch are deeply inspirational to us four-eye fantasists.

He could easily be a Wizard or Artificer here.

Also, science heroes are on the rise. Comic books had people like Bruce Banner for decades, where his "normal" state is bespecktacled and lanky and sciency, and then he has his Barbarian state (we still need that Barbarian archetype, fyi, the one that's like a rogue/wizard when not raging).

 

[Laurefindel]

I don't miss the bad-ass, kind-of-a-dick-but-a-lovable-one pulp hero of the 80s-90s. I do miss the normal person rising above his/her place to become the hero à la Helen Ripley or even Luke Skywalker however, despite their doubts or weaknesses. I guess Neo from The Matrix fits in there too. I also miss the book-Aragorn archetype of the noble-but-humble hero going through great loops to do the right thing the right way. There is a bit of that in the modern Captain America and Black Panther, I've got to give it to them.

Sometimes I feel this is a dying archetype, but I'm sure that if I gave it half a thought I'd find a couple more. But I'm glad the bad-ass dick and damsel-in-distress are gone... well, mostly.

 

[Marandahir]

I don't miss the bad-ass, kind-of-a-dick-but-a-lovable-one pulp hero of the 80s-90s. I do miss the normal person rising above his/her place to become the hero à la Helen Ripley or even Luke Skywalker however, despite their doubts or weaknesses. I guess Neo from The Matrix fits in there too. I also miss the book-Aragorn archetype of the noble-but-humble hero going through great loops to do the right thing the right way. There is a bit of that in the modern Captain America and Black Panther, I've got to give it to them.

Sometimes I feel this is a dying archetype, but I'm sure that if I gave it half a thought I'd find a couple more. But I'm glad the bad-ass dick and damsel-in-distress are gone... well, mostly.

In the new Star Wars films, Finn, Rose Tico, Bodhi Rook, Jannah, even young Han Solo fit this bill. The entire series "Star Wars Resistance" lives on this trope, with nearly every cast member rising to the occasion at some point from relative normalcy. And to some extent, "Star Wars Rebels" was about this too -- Kanan says he didn't sign up for the military. Do a little good here and there, save Lothal, but fight a war? That's what they have to grow into.

In Marvel, yes there's Captain America, who is only great because he is good. But also in this trope to some extent, there's various "science heroes" like Iron Man and Doctor Strange who become great through their smarts and studying and practical effort, even if they were pompous a***s beforehand. And there's Spider-Man, who if he's nothing without the suit, doesn't deserve it, and who stands up for the little guy as a friendly neighbourhood spider-man. And there's Peggy Carter of course, who fights against the tides of sexism to become the greatest spymaster Shield has ever had, even more so than Fury. And there's Rosario Dawson's Night Nurse Claire Temple, who gets caught up with all these injured street-level superheroes, and decides to learn martial arts from Colleen Wing and takes up cat claws while in China and becomes a hero in her own right.

Over at Disney Proper, there's Flynn Rider in Tangled, there's Kristoff in Frozen/2, there's Aladdin, there's Tiana, there's Milo Thatch, there's Jim Hawkins, there's Pacha, there's Quasimodo, there's Fa/Hua Mulan, there's Cassandra in Tangled the series, there's Miss Bianca and Bernard, you can even make a case for Anna in Frozen/2, given that she has no powers whatsoever and yet is the real hero of the films. Taran of the Chronicles of Prydain is this trope to a T. Literally, this is what his plotline is, and unlike with Rey in Star Wars, they stick firm to the the idea that he is Taran nobody, but it's not where he comes from that matters, it's who is is that matters. Disney will be re-adapting the entirety of the Chronicles in the coming years for D+, which is awesome since The Black Cauldron was such a financial failure.

Samwise Gamgee carried the popularization of the trope forward at the turn of the 21st with the movie adaptations, and arguments could be made for Ron and Hermione in Harry Potter.

There's a lot when you look at the margins.

 

[Tonguez]

Characters like Milo Thatch are deeply inspirational to us four-eye fantasists.

He could easily be a Wizard or Artificer here.

Also, science heroes are on the rise. Comic books had people like Bruce Banner for decades, where his "normal" state is bespecktacled and lanky and sciency, and then he has his Barbarian state (we still need that Barbarian archetype, fyi, the one that's like a rogue/wizard when not raging).

Sherlock Homes and Dr Watson are iconic Smart Heroes who can also handle themselves in a fight.

The Conneticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court is an Engineer

Doc Savage was a Doctor and Scientist too (although he was a hyper-competent uberman so probably doesnt count)

 

[Marandahir]

Sherlock Homes and Dr Watson are iconic Smart Heroes who can also handle themselves in a fight.

The Conneticut Yankee in King Arthurs Court is an Engineer

Doc Savage was a Doctor and Scientist too (although he was a hyper-competent uberman so probably doesnt count)

Doc Samson too.

Heck, over at DC, there's Jimmy Olsen!