in the Required Alignments... why? thread there have been several references to heros who can only be considered tactically... there's no other way to say this...
MORONIC.
that is to say heros who, through lust for vainglorious honour or through sheer pigheadedness couldn't plan their way out of a wet paper bag, yet somehow manage to win fights with monotinous regularity. this can be a matter of hollywood tactics (IE the writer had no clue about tactical combat and thus neither side bothers with it) or simply the way the character is.
This thread is where you name and shame heros from any medium who fit into this catagory. here are a couple to start you off.
Superman: the man of steel rarely uses tactics, instead relying on being unstoppable and invulnerable. this works, but it's very lazy and leaves him open to enemies who wield his one weakness, kryptonite (which is amazingly common on earth, all things considered.)
Harry potter: beyond the occasional use of cover the boy who lived can be considered massively dense from a tactical viewpoint. at no point during seven books or eight movies does he attempt to approach the enemy's flank and negate their cover, use any form of tactical manuvering to negate enemy advantages, or even use terrain to gain an advantage himself. as to his weapon of choice... wands are: high effect on hit, short effective range, low accuracy, slow rate of fire, high versitility. he'd have been better off snapping off shots with a pistol and using magic for utility, though that would have upset his DC-like code of non-lethal force.
Vash the Stampede: as much as I love Trigun, he follows a code that constantly gets him in trouble, the absolute unwillingness to kill. On the other hand, near the end of the series they show how others suffer through his actions.
The Tick. a super hero who is demonstratably tougher than superman, the tick has but one weakness: his brain. as a result of these two factors the only tactics he uses are those divised by his sidekick, Auther, and when left to his own devices he tends to just hit things. justified by the fact that the series is a parody, and the lack of tactics were thus intentional.
Roland from the song of Roland. Did not sound his Oliphant to get reinforcements instead got tried to fight a giant army with only his forces and got beaten.
Ichigo from Bleach. I mean seriously this guy just rushes everything head on and hopes for the best. The only time he thinks tacticly is when someone else would be hurt if he didn't run away.
Also the entire cast of DBZ.
|
Batman.
Sure, tactics all the way up to capture the bad guy, but then he does the most moronic thing ever...
HE LETS THAT VILLAIN LIVE!!!!!! I mean, c'mon how many times has he had to lock these guys up? They get out, be it some legal technicallity, a break out, or just good behavior, and BAM!! they're at it again.
Every single player knows, you don't leave the bad guys alive or they come back.
Batman is by far the most moronic of all by this most simplistic tactical error he repeats OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER............and OVER!!!
|
|
Roland from the song of Roland. Did not sound his Oliphant to get reinforcements instead got tried to fight a giant army with only his forces and got beaten.
Since the stories of Charlemagne's Paladins are the source of the name and one of the inspirations of the D&D class... I think it's fair to regard Roland as one of the archetypal inspirations for playing a Paladin as "Lawful Stupid".
:P
|
|
Batman.
Sure, tactics all the way up to capture the bad guy, but then he does the most moronic thing ever...
HE LETS THAT VILLAIN LIVE!!!!!! I mean, c'mon how many times has he had to lock these guys up? They get out, be it some legal technicallity, a break out, or just good behavior, and BAM!! they're at it again.
Every single player knows, you don't leave the bad guys alive or they come back.
Batman is by far the most moronic of all by this most simplistic tactical error he repeats OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER............and OVER!!!
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
So, Batman's insane. ;)
to be totally fair to the batman, it's a tactical weakness shared by every member of the justice league. i'm not exactly an expert on DC comics but i think it's part of their creed.
to be totally fair to the batman, it's a tactical weakness shared by every member of the justice league. i'm not exactly an expert on DC comics but i think it's part of their creed.
A - This 'tactical weakness' is because the Justice League is so often written as super-powered police officers who under most circumstances are not allowed to use deadly force and are discouraged from it even in those situations where they are allowed to.
B - Up until the New 52 reboot last September there were in fact two known murderers in the Justice League; Wonder Woman, who snapped the neck of Maxwell Lord on live television (a meta who could mind control anyone, including Superman), and Green Arrow, who killed Prometheus for the destruction of Star-City, the loss of his ward's right arm and the death of his adopted grand-daughter Lian (Prometheus was DC's anti-batman who made the tactical error of assuming that the heroes wouldn't kill him even if he was caught).
C - There are worse things that can be done to a villain than killing them, some of which the Justice League have done with alarming frequency; banishment to the Phantom Zone, turning interstellar menaces over to the GLC (their Sciencells are no prize), and in one case magically lobotomizing a villain to negate a portion of his free will (to say nothing of wiping the memory of one of there own who objected to the process, namely Batman)
But in general, tactical superiority of thought and moral high ground just don't seem to mix.
|
|
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
So, Batman's insane. ;)
I think that's a terrible definition of insanity, no matter who said it or was misattributed as having said it.
As to Batman - yes, he is insane. But not because of that.
Best evidence I've found is that the first use of this sort of description of insanity was in the 'Narcotics Anonymous' guidebook (as opposed to all those misattributions out there), around 1982-1983...
And no, it definitely is not a definition for all types of insanity... but to me, it's not such a terrible definition as many others out there (for at least defining one problem that should fall under the 'insanity' heading')-- because someone who does keep doing the same thing over and over again the same way, getting the same result every time he or she does it, yet he or she still expects a different result each time he or she tries it again, is not exactly sane...
Besides, my Psychologist thinks it's funny... and useful to remember whenever I catch myself getting stuck in a loop.
|
Side rant about DC:
|
Roland from the song of Roland. Did not sound his Oliphant to get reinforcements instead got tried to fight a giant army with only his forces and got beaten.Since the stories of Charlemagne's Paladins are the source of the name and one of the inspirations of the D&D class... I think it's fair to regard Roland as one of the archetypal inspirations for playing a Paladin as "Lawful Stupid".
:P
The class was pretty much lifted whole cloth from Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, which was about someone being another of Charlemagne's paladins reborn. That novel (along with Moorcock's Eternal Champion books) was also the inspiration for the original alignment system.
That character was most definitely not "Lawful Stupid".
|
|
The class was pretty much lifted whole cloth from Anderson's novel Three Hearts and Three Lions, which was about someone being another of Charlemagne's paladins reborn. That novel (along with Moorcock's Eternal Champion books) was also the inspiration for the original alignment system.That character was most definitely not "Lawful Stupid".
I've read Three Hearts and Three Lions and I agree with you (twice over-- the main character is an epitome of what a Paladin in D&D should be and he's definitely not "Lawful Stupid").
Doesn't change my opinion of Roland, as portrayed in "the Song of Roland" though.
Hmmm.... Back on topic-- individuals thought to be heroes, but tactically incompetent (trying to stick to people who were regarded as heroes-- otherwise there are a lot more people I could refer to in this list, for all the tactically inept a**holes that were known to have majorly screwed up and aren't admired by anyone)...
Douglas MacArthur, in the Phillipines at the beginning of WW2; and again in Korea, late 1950 (failing to pay attention to intelligence of the impending Chinese intervention; truly bone-headed failures in the retreat back down Korea from the Yalu after the Chinese attacked). I do have to give old Doug props for Inchon, and he was supposed to have been really good in the old 42nd Division during WW1.
Bernard Montgomery-- truly a f***ing idiot, who got a lot of men killed unnecessarily on numerous occasions, not nearly as brilliant as the (unearned) reputation he had. El Alamein (both battles) were planned by someone else (Monty's predecessor)-- Monty swept in and stole the glory, but fought the battles in an unnecessarily head-on way that caused more British casualties than were necessary. Operation Market-Garden was one of the worst fiascoes of the Western Front in WW2-- all Monty's doing, and apparently if he'd listened to the 'Free Dutch' forces helping us out-- he should have known better. The British 1st Airborne were the ones who really paid the price for his stupidity.
Christian Marie Ferdinand de la Croix de Castries. French Commander at Dien Bien Phu, 1954. Very brave man-- hopelessly stupid, tactically and operationally-- though the blame does not rest solely on him, as going to Dien Bien Phu at all was planned by echelons above Colonel de Castries; his tactical command might not have changed the eventual outcome of the battle but it sure didn't help.
George Armstrong Custer-- another really brave guy, but really stupid. His tactical failures and lack of attention to battlefield intelligence resulted in the loss of about half of the 7th U.S. Cavalry. If you need me to tell you where and when... clearly you're not a student of military history (or at least not U.S. military history).
Marcus Reno, at the same battle... if it wasn't for Frederick Benteen (3rd in command, the most senior leader to have performed well in the battle on the U.S. side), most of the 7th Cavalry would have been wiped out, instead of half of it.
Douglas "the Butcher" Haig. Kept sending his men over the top into the German guns, battle after battle, throughout the entire war. Never did get the idea that just maybe he should try different tactics. Even Marshall Foch got the idea that maybe new ideas and tactics were needed. Never did get anywhere but deadlocked in the trenches, until the Germans broke from other pressures at home plus facing the AEF reinforcements to the Allies and dealing with the crushing blow to morale that was the realization that if the war continued-- there would be millions more soldiers crossing the Atlantic to keep growing the size of the AEF. Haig was responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of British troops, who might have lived if Haig had understood how to fight the war in a less costly and futile way.