No more heroes anymore

It doesn't help that, typically, the worst roleplaying I've seen has been of paladins. It's a good concept, but I've seen too many who turn it into something scary. And not the good kind of scary.

K177Y C47 wrote:

Personally I tend to prefer the darker grittier characters...

Mr. Knight in shining armor is just utterly boring and has been played out way to many times. Additionally, Mr. Do-Gooder-for-the-sake-of-goodness is so utterly bland. It is kind of the reason why I hate superman. He is dull. When you are the epitome of boyscout, your character has no character and you are just kinda... a cardboard cut-out...

I'd call that a matter of taste. I hate the grizzled anti-hero. You want to talk about overdone? Wolverine, The Punisher, Lobo, V, Rorschach, The Question, Elric, Hellsing, Batman (granted this is largely dependent upon the writer, but the most well known Batman - Frank Miller's - definitely qualifies), pretty much every video game character ever that's not a Croft or an Italian plumber.

Just . . . ugh. We get it. These characters are like cigarettes - cool and dangerous but ultimately not worth the money and bad for the health of the culture.

Cynicism is easy. I've fallen to it many more times in my life than I care to admit. It's easy and boring and vulgar (in the Shakespearean sense) and I hate, hate, hate, hate it. Even the perennial Boy Scouts like Green Arrow and Superman are getting gritty anti-hero reboots.

Finding another way, being better than the world and not capitulating to it, showing those who have all but given up that there is hope left - that is far from boring. That is the coolest thing imaginable.

The preceding, of course, is all my own opinion and I'm sure there plenty of people who feel the opposite.

100% Agreed. Wolverine was awesome when I was young and angsty, but he just comes off as a shallow and selfish character to me now. The unkillable killing machine thing has been played out for a while too, but that's a topic for another discussion.

Captain America has always been my favorite comic book hero; because, despite how bleak things get, despite how many reasons get shoved in his face to not be "good," despite all the 90's comics cynicism, he still fights the good fight. That's the difference between Cap, and your average everyman anti-hero. That's what helps make him a "super hero." His dedication to his cause supersedes personal revenge stories or selfish desires; he's good for the sake of good. He protects the will of the people, because it's the right thing to do, not because his boss pays him to, or he's told to by someone else. That, I can get behind.

Anti-heroes are popular(in my opinion) because they are so relatable on a basic level. Everybody gets crapped on in life sometimes, and a lot of folks wish they had some kind of super power to deal with that crap. Anti-heroes do this in spades. They don't always save the world, but they make damn sure to pay back whoever crossed them and get some vengeance.

Personally, I'm sick of revenge stories. I'm tired of the arms race of badassitude constantly getting ratcheted higher and higher. I choose to play PF characters with conviction, fighting for some higher cause than gold pieces and XP. But, that's just me. Different strokes make the world go 'round, so I'm not here to invalidate anyone else's play motivations. Just expressing my point of view.

Honestly I got tired of constantly playing heroes.

So i play regular people. Much more fun.

It doesn't help that, typically, the worst roleplaying I've seen has been of paladins. It's a good concept, but I've seen too many who turn it into something scary. And not the good kind of scary.

That seems to be a common complaint.

It's unfortunate, really. I've seen some bad Paladins, yeah (mostly on Neverwinter Nights) but I've seen a lot of good ones too (mostly in my PnP groups, but a few in NWN as well). A really well-played Paladin is something to behold, and not in the train-wreck/sixty-car pile-up way.

Who says heroes can't be regular people.

It doesn't help that, typically, the worst roleplaying I've seen has been of paladins. It's a good concept, but I've seen too many who turn it into something scary. And not the good kind of scary.

Rarely seen that. To me, the very worst comes from immature CN "murderhoboes' who do very little RPing at all, and what they do- is bad.

Honestly I got tired of constantly playing heroes.

So i play regular people. Much more fun.

Regular people stay home and farm.

Hama wrote:

Honestly I got tired of constantly playing heroes.

So i play regular people. Much more fun.

Regular people stay home and farm.

Regular people can rise to the call when things are threatened. It's only the theme of like half the fantasy ever published.

They still don't have to turn into noble crusaders for all that is good and true. Or into cynical anti-heroes.

I wonder where this 'anymore' nonsense comes from. Heracles killed innocents out of rage, and was ultimately killed for infidelity. Virgil's Aeneid is frequently interpreted as a dark story about a protagonist whose actions are morally ambiguous. Those interpretations hold that Virgil was critical of actions taken by Aeneas, and hence Augustus. The 'knight in shining armor' people keep referring? Lancelot's portrayal in pre-20th century tales was far from chivalrous, even by the standards of the time. If grim-and-gritty protaganists are

a phase

then it is a phase which has lasted well over two thousand years, through most of the history of human literature.

Both have lasted a very long time. After all, if most characters weren't so flawed, how special would genuine heroes feel?

I like when they tried to teach Hercules to play the lute. The big guy got so upset at his incompetence on the instrument that he broke it over the instructor's head, killing the man.
Cu Chulainn was so enraged after not getting his bloodlust out at the nearest enemy village that when he returned home, they had to restrain him and douse him in vats of cold water, lest he slay everyone in his own village.
Those are heroes of antiquity!

Why does this have to be an either/or thing? I love stand-up heroes when done properly, and I love antiheroes when they're done properly too. Certain varieties of both can certainly deliver bad messages (either 'Kill everyone' or 'Let atrocities happen because you don't want to get your hands dirty', just for example)...but neither is inherently a bad trope in and of itself.

Let's look at Captain America: The Winter Soldier (for example, and because it'[s one of the best superhero movies ever). Captain America is a straight-up hero. Pure, true-blue, Paladin type. At no point in that movie does he do anything morally questionable...and he makes everyone around him a better person in doing so. He's great. Y'know who else is in that movie? Black Widow and Nick Fury. Now, I can't think of two characters who fit the antihero mold any better...and they do some seriously awesome stuff in that movie. The two can work together and do so very well indeed.

I love Wolverine, when he's done well, and I love that he and Nightcrawler (my favorite X-Man by far...and a much more classically heroic guy) are best buds and hang out. That's great. Mixing the two character types is fun, good storytelling, and allows for more nuance than a story completely focused on one or the other. Why can't we aim for more of that instead of badmouthing one character type or the other?

Now, I will add a caveat. Some Antiheroes do go too far, cross the moral event horizon and drift into 'villain protagonist' territory. I don't like those, at least not if still portrayed as heroic. I also consider them a tiny subset of antiheroes, though.

And, because it needs to be said again, Kevin Conroy is the best Batman.

For some reason, mixing heroes and antiheroes works more in the movies.

In real life? Every group I've been with, it has always spelled disaster. The character conflict becomes too much and the party fails.

I agree with MagusJanus. I have never been in a group where mixing a Captain America and a Black Widow ever turned into something other than a huge disaster. And so many CN (and some that are supposedly Good according to their character sheet) characters have been what you said in your last statement (above Kevin Conroy is best Batman, which is the honest truth), Deadmanwalking. I have never been in a party where CN wasn't played as a giant douche.

I have been exposed to more CN douches than LG douches. Mainly because people equate LG with Superman = boring droolfest. Never come across a paladin played as Judge Dredd. But so many rogues as the steal everything selfish megadouche "But that's what my character would do!" types.

Deadmanwalking has a good point, but it's rare that we get to play more than one character in-game to do the mixing(heroes and anti-heroes). At that point, it depends on what the rest of the party is doing and how the dynamic mixes.

*shrugs*

I really don't know what to say. I'm pretty sure I've had a mix of Good characters and Neutral characters (both played as such) in every game I've ever run (and most I've played in).

Heck, my current game has a Paladin and several CN characters of varying attitudes (including one who just wants everything to be on fire). No real problems thus far (there've been conflicts...but there's a difference between conflicts and problems).

So...saying this doesn't work in gaming is utterly foreign to me.

I agree with MagusJanus. I have never been in a group where mixing a Captain America and a Iron Man

Black Widow always struck me as more professional non-hero less anti-hero.

I now noticed that I havent ever played paladin. Though I'm seen too many blue-eyed-scouts and shiny-murderhoboes-with-cause. But I like 'imbossible' and different consepts. Perhaps I could try play paladin as intelligent, social and reasonable character. I wonder if that has been tried.

I tend to play Han Solo/Captain Reynolds types. The ones who say, yeah I'm in it for the money, but underneath it all their conscience gets the better of them and they'll do the right thing in the end.

But I like 'imbossible' and different consepts. Perhaps I could try play paladin as intelligent, social and reasonable character. I wonder if that has been tried.

Ahem.

Perhaps I could try play paladin as intelligent, social and reasonable character. I wonder if that has been tried.

raises eyebrow

I tend to play Han Solo/Captain Reynolds types. The ones who say, yeah I'm in it for the money, but underneath it all their conscience gets the better of them and they'll do the right thing in the end.

This appeals to me.

Adjule wrote:

I agree with MagusJanus. I have never been in a group where mixing a Captain America and a Iron Man

Black Widow always struck me as more professional non-hero less anti-hero.

The movie version's a SHIELD agent, and thus 'heroic' inasmuch as she works for the 'good guys'...considering her and their modus operandi, I think that puts her solidly in antihero territory.

Ivan Rûski wrote:

I tend to play Han Solo/Captain Reynolds types. The ones who say, yeah I'm in it for the money, but underneath it all their conscience gets the better of them and they'll do the right thing in the end.

This appeals to me.

I've also always enjoyed these types of characters, though my personal characters tend to be more overtly selfless.

Michael Carpenter, of the Dresden Files, is one of the best examples of LG Paladin I've seen in literature. He's certainly better at it than the concept's archetype, ie Lancelot.

Yet he frequently works with Harry Dresden, who is a CG type, who consistently places lives above ethical and moral questions.

I assume that MagusJanus means "Pretend Time" when he says "real life". The issue there is that you have two egos that need to work together, whereas in literature/movies/etc, you typically have one ego determining what both characters do to remain true to their characters and still navigate the conflict.

Perhaps I could try play paladin as intelligent, social and reasonable character. I wonder if that has been tried.

Only since 1975.

Holger Carlson is a perfect Paladin to me. has some issues, but does the Right Thing. Very Human, "social and reasonable".

Michael Carpenter, of the Dresden Files, is one of the best examples of LG Paladin I've seen in literature. He's certainly better at it than the concept's archetype, ie Lancelot.

Galahad is better example of the archetype.

Lancelot is the fallen paladin archetype.

MagusJanus wrote:

It doesn't help that, typically, the worst roleplaying I've seen has been of paladins. It's a good concept, but I've seen too many who turn it into something scary. And not the good kind of scary.

Rarely seen that. To me, the very worst comes from immature CN "murderhoboes' who do very little RPing at all, and what they do- is bad.

The murder hobos don't actually have alignments. They put CN on the sheet and assume they won't get blistered by Smite Evil. Because they are too childish to face the reality of their actions.

I tend to warn new players that alignment is a fundamental element of my game, but I don't force anything on anyone. I do however track their alignment in secret.

I'm still amazed at the LE people who are basically good guys save for the occasional atrocity. That doesn't happen with CN, they always shift to evil.

On Paladins.
Some classes aren't for rookies. I actively discourage new players from starting with Monks (for mechanical reasons) and Paladins (for RP and mechanical reasons). These are advanced classes.

EDIT: Lancelot is not the classic Knight in Shining armor hero. Gawain is, Roland and Orlando are. Lancelot is a tragic (head case) figure.

Only since 1975.

3H&3L is definitely one of my all-time favorite sources, but my favorite paladin is Rooster Cogburn from True Grit (1968 novel; 1969 film).

I'd agree with that.

*shrugs*

I really don't know what to say. I'm pretty sure I've had a mix of Good characters and Neutral characters (both played as such) in every game I've ever run (and most I've played in).

Heck, my current game has a Paladin and several CN characters of varying attitudes (including one who just wants everything to be on fire). No real problems thus far (there've been conflicts...but there's a difference between conflicts and problems).

So...saying this doesn't work in gaming is utterly foreign to me.

I can relate. In my current PF group, there are 5 players, each with a different alignment. But, our characters work well together, and as players, we're long time friends, so that helps. The DM doesn't put too heavy a hand on alignment anyway, barring extreme cases.

We do have both Good and Evil characters in the same group, and it doesn't get any rowdier than some off-color banter when coming up with plans of action.

Same goes here.

My Kingmaker group consists of LG Oracle, LN Samurai, NG/TN Cavalier, CN Hunter, and CE Warmage.
The Age of Worms game we just started has LG Paladin, LN Druid, LE Monk, NG Necromancer, and CN Rogue.

The fact that everyone in our Runelords game is Good (LG Crusader, NG leaning LN Witch, NG leaning TN Warpriest, CG Magus) is a bit of an odd group out compared both to other current and to prior games.

The only time I've seen a mixed-alignment party cause issues is if one person has a paladin...in which case it isn't the alignment that causes issue, but a single clause in the paladin code

avoids working with evil characters

If you remove that one clause, then there is nothing to stop having a paladin and evil characters in the group together save immature players.

The Pathfinder version of the code toned that down considerably, giving exception clauses for "working with a lesser evil to mutually oppose a greater one" and "working consistently toward the evil character's redemption".

My pfs characters are more of the anti-hero type. Most are CN but are not murderhobos in any way. They have learned that in some cases, you have to bring some bad guys back alive for interrogation. I do a aasimar paladin waiting for her turn to start.

You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

"isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

That sounds familiar.

You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

I have seen those evil dressed up as CN types on occasion, but they were almost always player that were relatively new to the hobby. Or, it was a game where evil characters weren't allowed, so they'd write CN on their sheet and act evil anyway.

More often than not, I would see someone playing CN as completely off-their-rocker insane, citing the alignment as their reasoning. It's silly, but that just really rubs me the wrong way; as if being "crazy" is a singular condition reserved for characters who streak through a tavern with a chicken on their head singing showtunes.

It bothers me because there are as many levels of "crazy" as their are circles in the Abyss; no one alignment is going to wrap them all up in a nice bow.

Kirth, same here. Any time someone in one of my groups wants to play evil, they just roll up evil.

Unfortunately, for some reason, most people limit LE to "doesn't take monsters prisoner" with my players. Which is the same way the paladin is played, only the paladin is usually also a jerk towards those who are evil.

Now, it's when animal companions are involved that things get ugly...

I usually see CN get played as a Julio Scoundrel-type character.

You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

What are the ages of those you play with? While not a sure-fire way to tell, in my experience the younger ones are the ones that play CN in that fashion. I wish I could be more choose-y in who I play with, but that's not up to me and a bit harder to do when playing over the internet with random strangers. And I know that's the biggest part of my problem.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

What are the ages of those you play with? While not a sure-fire way to tell, in my experience the younger ones are the ones that play CN in that fashion. I wish I could be more choose-y in who I play with, but that's not up to me and a bit harder to do when playing over the internet with random strangers. And I know that's the biggest part of my problem.

That sound like adults.

I play with grownups, generally, but now those grownups have kids that are old enough to play with grownups. This changes a lot of things in a game group and the type of games that get played.

In my experience, the adults with children present will shy away from the evil tendencies that have dominated their character concepts for a couple of years. Some have restrictions that go in place for game content as well. One guy who is very experienced (Wisconsin native, 20 year military, life long gamer, FLGS owner), had his kids playing early but restricted any demon/devil content and most evil cleric stuff. This seemed limiting for very bright teenagers but it's understandable.
Some other adult players balked at kids in games and the inevitable content restrictions, but most will wander back for solid play group.

I've found that kids play good guys.
Late teens like bad guys. (and Chaotic Silly)
Early 20s are a mixed bag.
Mid toLate 20s are the group that balks at alignment. This is where I find the CN(E) group.
The early 30s are where it gets interesting. The LG characters are complex and even the CE characters are nuanced and far from caricatures.
Slowly they drift towards an alignment "comfort Zone". this isn't bad role playing, they just know where they want to be for an extended time and any shifts in alignment are deliberate, sub plot elements implemented carefully.

The older guys that are more RP oriented tend towards Heroic archetypes while the ladies get more treacherous. 8). The tactical simulation people (mostly male at this point) just ignore their alignment and check with the current GM on where they're at if needed.

I wonder if that's just a unique observation from a long standing group with frequent rotations?

that just really rubs me the wrong way; as if being "crazy" is a singular condition reserved for characters who streak through a tavern with a chicken on their head singing showtunes.

As if there were something wrong with that.

You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

There are a lot of tropes that I've never seen actually play out. For instance, I've never met an honest 'katana fanboy' that suggested they could cut through tanks, or even were superior to longswords. I've never seen Lawful Stupid in a real game either.

What kind of character I design and play depends on what kind of game it is.

There's no one right answer. Playing the perpetual good gal, who wouldn't dare do wrong no matter what, will not work in a game steeped in intrigue, and manipulation. At best, you'll simply be left out, at worst you'll end up a cat's paw.

On the other hand, a bold brave hero works wonderfully in a "rescue the captured noble, battle the dragon, save the day" style game. A double dealing manipulator would be painfully out of place there.

It's also different in different settings and systems. Forgotten Realms is a heroic land, where various heroes have shaped the world. Thus being a literal, "doing it for the cause" hero makes narrative sense there. World of Darkness, as the name implies, is more of a cynical view by default, a world without untainted heroism, or untainted much of anything really. Being a selfless hero there is seen as delusional, or exploitable.

That being said, I find that most of my characters tend to fall pretty close to chaotic good, behaviourally. It's closer to my own person views of wanting to do the right thing, and help people, but being more interested in the individual than society. Also, having a lack of concern for traditional ideas.

I've played good, neutral, evil, and unaligned characters (in non D&D systems), but none of them were ever irredeemably evil. Even a LE slaver that I played wouldn't sell to anyone they thought would mistreat a slave, and would punish those that did. Small comfort to be sure, but I have a difficult time imagining anyone who doesn't have any redeeming qualities at all.

What I've never done, not once, was play a character who was in it just for the treasure. Good or bad, my characters have more important goals and motivations than that, even if they're just ideas I keep in mind while playing. Even the evil characters I've played gave away treasure if someone else could use it. Not entirely altruistic, mind you, a well armed party make better shields.

IIRC, the scene in Holy Grail where Lancelot slaughters a wedding party is actually from the books...

A quick question to you all are your characters heros in the game in the true sense of the word fighting evil because its the right thing to do risking life and limb to help the common folk

Or are they just a bunch of gold hunters who dont care about anything except profit

Yeah, generally my characters are heroes, whether reluctant or not. It's no different than I feel IRL. Do the right thing, etc.--even if it means you risk something for what is good and right. Neither I nor my characters is perfect, though. Most have motivations that start out a bit less than noble.

Kivvit kept reminding the others in the party during the Runelords AP that no, we're not heroes. If we're heroes then we have the expectation by the populace to always save them from everything, including themselves, she told them. But she always tried to do the right thing even if there was no profit to be had. So really? Hero.

I always hope they become heroes. Hope springs eternal.

I have had this stuck in my head since I saw this thread title yesterday.

I thought of THIS

You want to hear something really weird? I haven't run into the "CN is just an excuse to be evil without writing 'evil' on the sheet" since I was maybe 10 years old. I've seen a lot of CN as "doesn't worry too much about the future" and "isn't a really bad person, but puts too much effort into satisfying whims and thereby sometimes comes to grief" and so on.

You may not realize it, KG, but you're a lucky lucky guy to have avoided those people. Though I'll admit that they seem to haunt game stores rather than be players in regular campaigns, which is entirely understandable. ;)