| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I've been in several threads over the past few months where PC behavior is being discussed and someone will say something along the lines of "no way, that's badwrongfun! PCs are by definition heroic! They don't have to 'prove' anything!"
And someone will reply with something like "No! you're doing it wrong! Heroism has to be EARNED, not given! PCs are exceptional by definition, but they still have to earn the title of 'heroic'!"
Here's my take.
The game is designed so that PCs are indeed "exceptional" specimens when compared to the norms of their races. This is a purely mechanical thing and has nothing to do with the character's "character". It is completely possible for a player character to be immensely powerful and imposing while still being an abject coward.
The game is also intended for most PCs to indeed behave heroically, and the mechanical advantages they are given are designed to make it easy for the PCs to behave "heroically." Most adventure paths are designed with the idea that the PCs will act heroically. There is a presumption of heroism embedded deeply in the game. Powerful melee characters are expected to rush into combat to protect the innocent. Powerful spellcasters are expected to bend reality to their will in the pursuit of good results.
But true heroism by a PC requires that the character be role played to be heroic.
There is also a very important distinction between "heroic" and "awesome" although some folks seem to miss that distinction. The PC who leaps into battle against a foe and dispatches the foe with a flurry of critical hits and combat maneuvers is very much being "awesome" but not necessarily "heroic". In fact there is sometimes an inverse relationship between "awesomeness" and "heroism" because true heroism involves some level of risk to the hero. There's nothing heroic about hacking through an army of evil-doers if the evil-doers present no realistic threat to the PC. Heroism is a selfless act, generally associated with some sort of sacrifice and risk to the hero. Simply beating down the opposition with glee might truly be awesome, but it's not necessarily heroic.
Many GMs (myself included) do not award the title of "hero" lightly. Even PCs who have won wide renown for their success in combat are not viewed as "heroes" unless they've done something truly dangerous and risky.
The title of "hero" should be earned, not granted. At least that's how I view it.
"Heroic" = Intent and circumstance
"Awesome" = Execution
Why are you assuming that PC's have to be heroic? You can play a campaign where the whole party is neutral-aligned mercenaries. Or even evil campaigns. Most games I've been in feature a mix of good and neutral characters, with varying motivations. Some may be heroic, while others definitely aren't.
What? Seriously? My whole post was all about how heroism is based on how the PCs act and that if they don't do heroic things they can't be heroic.
And from that you get the idea that I am assuming PCs "have to be heroic?"
Wow. That's like totally the opposite of what I was trying to say.
PCs not only don't HAVE to be heroic, many who think they are being heroic are actually just being awesome and act like churlish spoiled brats in character.
That was sorta my whole point Fromper.
I deliberately avoided the situation where players are deliberately playing evil or otherwise selfish, non-heroic characters since I thought those cases would not need to be addressed.
I guess I was wrong.
What does dangerous mean exactly? If the "hero" slices through the evil doers army with the intent of saving his friends and Comes out completely unscathed (do to build and lucky dice rolls lets say) which while awesome is it considered heroic because it ended up not being difficult or did the intent of protecting make it heroic?
Or is this sorta like the Hercules cartoon where even though be did a lot of "heroic" things it was until he was completely ready to sacrifice his life for a loved one that he became a "hero" which didn't even involve any kind of summer er human strenght.
What does dangerous mean exactly? If the "hero" slices through the evil doers army with the intent of saving his friends and Comes out completely unscathed (do to build and lucky dice rolls lets say) which while awesome is it considered heroic because it ended up not being difficult or did the intent of protecting make it heroic?
Or is this sorta like the Hercules cartoon where even though be did a lot of "heroic" things it was until he was completely ready to sacrifice his life for a loved one that he became a "hero" which didn't even involve any kind of summer er human strenght.
There is definitely some room for individual interpretation havoc. But the Hercules example is an excellent one. This is a very common superhero trope. Superman does all sorts of things, but when the writers want to show how much of a "hero" he is, they strip him of his powers or put him up against a more powerful version of himself so that he has to win through sheer determination and sacrifice.
If a character leaps into combat where they are truly at risk of major injury and death, but they roll a bunch of crits and the enemy all roll badly, that was still a heroic thing even if the character ends up unscathed. However, it's hard to PROVE that was heroic in those cases...
One of the things that Tolkien found very frustrating about how the Lord of the Rings was received was that many people viewed Aragorn, Gandalf, even Boromir as "heroic" but viewed Frodo as "weak" or "ineffective."
In Tolkien's mind Frodo was the true hero of the book. He sacrificed the most, risked the most and endured the most for the sake of others. His actions were, in Tolkien's (and my own) mind, by far the most heroic actions in the book. Second to Frodo would be Sam. They were the true heroes of the story.
I can agree they were heroic, but they were awful whiny about it. ;)
I suspect you are confusing the book with the movie. I liked the movies, but don't get me started on how badly they presented Frodo, Sam and Farimir compared to the book....
I wouldn't know, I never touched the book. My wife says she got to the third and had to start skimming to get past the whining and finally gave up.
Well, that's a shame, because there is a reason they are routinely voted the best fiction books written in the past 100 years.
I do agree that the last book has long sections describing Frodo and Sam's trek through Mordor that some people find boring. But I didn't, and I didn't see Frodo or Sam as "whiny" in those sections, in fact it was in those sections that their true sacrifice and struggle is revealed.
But yeah, tough reading for many. You should read it yourself to decide for yourself if it's whiny though.
I hear a lot of people make the same sorts of complaints about books like "Moby Dick" or "To Kill a Mockingbird" or other works that are acknowledged to be great works of fiction. I suppose our modern tastes are adjusted for more action and less introspection in our heroes...
Which I personally think is a shame, but that's just how it is.
I may have to order a cheap boxed set and see for myself after I finish The Deed of Paksenarrion.
Well, luckily, even if you do find the Mordor sections tiring, you'll get to read lots of incredible action leading up to that section.
Helms Deep is still one of the most gripping reads ever written. Tolkien fought in WWI and his intimate knowledge of actual combat comes through in his battle scenes.
TOZ, LoTR is a complex moral parable. Frodo doesn't "fail" arbitrarily. Tolkien was showing that there are limits to even the most heroic person's abilities. LoTR was also very much a religious allegory. Frodo failing and having Gollum steal the ring and fall to his death was a very carefully calculated thing with several layers. Gollum was only there at the end because Frodo showed him mercy when Farimir wanted to kill him. Gollum's evil desires worked against Sauron's evil desires showing how evil is self-destructive. And all of it showed the invisible moving hand of divinity.
It's complex. It's allegorical. It's subtle. It's introspective.
All things that are becoming less and less appreciated (or even understood) by today's modern readers.
One of the things that Tolkien found very frustrating about how the Lord of the Rings was received was that many people viewed Aragorn, Gandalf, even Boromir as "heroic" but viewed Frodo as "weak" or "ineffective."
In Tolkien's mind Frodo was the true hero of the book. He sacrificed the most, risked the most and endured the most for the sake of others. His actions were, in Tolkien's (and my own) mind, by far the most heroic actions in the book. Second to Frodo would be Sam. They were the true heroes of the story.
Agreed.
I think Frodo failing to overcome the obsession is one of the greatest examples of a hero failing. The story would have been lessened without it.Yes but heroes failing only works when you establish that these people are heroes first, but having the hero fail in his first and only quest ever only to be saved by a quirk of fate just makes him look like a chump.
Frodo proved his heroism in the Barrow-downs when the barrow-wight had him, Sam, Merry and Pippen dressed for slaughter and sacrifice. Gandalf was then held in Orthanc, Aragorn was still yet to be encountered and Bombadil was back home. Frodo found himself alone, in the dark, unprotected and at the mercy of the wight. He battled his fear, his feelings of inadequacy and his inner demons to fight back and save his friends.
That scene was deliberately put into the book to show Frodo's heroism. And it happened before they even got to Bree.
Frodo had many quests. He only "failed" in his last one, and that only by an impossibly high definition of "success."
His actions were, in Tolkien's (and my own) mind, by far the most heroic actions in the book. Second to Frodo would be Sam. They were the true heroes of the story.
no way, sam is the boss of all heroes, frodo is up there though
thejeff, well... yes and no...
In my campaigns there aren't that many "heroes" as defined by my standards. There are many "adventurers" and many "awesome" characters, but heroism is quite rare.
But it happens.
Here is an example. Our party was exploring an ancient maze of tombs in the dark. My spellthief and our rogue were exploring ahead of the party, doing their jobs. My spellthief missed a spot check and fell into a large pit trap. No big deal, he wasn't badly injured. But his torch went out. So now he's in total darkness and feeling around for his torch when he is grabbed by a bunch of tentacles and hoisted into the air by a floating gasbag.
He fights back, but it is clear that he is being carried away from the party into the darkness.
The rogue, knowing only the direction of my spellthief's cries, and knowing nothing of the circumstances literally took a running start, dropped his own torch, jumped up on a tomb while quickdrawing his two short swords and took a blind leap into the darkness where he thought he heard my spellthief's voice.
As it happened, he found the gasbag, landed on it and started sliding down to his death. But he lashed out with his two shortswords as he was sliding down, and managed to critical hit with one. The GM ruled that his hit punctured the gasbag and stopped him from sliding. My spellthief had been stabbing at the creature too, and between the two of them they managed to kill the gasbag, which then slowly fell to the bottom of the pit.
Now, the heroism of that fight wasn't that the rogue managed a critical hit and saved my spellthief, that was the awesomeness.
The heroism was that blind leap into the dark risking everything to save a party member.
That was heroism.
I don't know if this'll count as heroism or not, but...
About a year ago I was in a kind of lame Pathfinder campaign. We were level 10ish with the wealth of level 3s, fighting APL +3s all for horseshoes. Yeah... horseshoes... But that's beside the point. We were dungeon delving, hoping to find our fortunes in more than merely horseshoes, when we came upon a cavernous room. From underneath us a purple worm erupted. Our cavalier instantly charged into the fray on his horse, but was quickly swallowed up and was taking a lot of damage. In fact, in two more turns, he would die forever. My druid had already died so hell would have to freeze over before he died again. I turned into a roc and flew our paladin into the fray. he jumped off and starting tangling with the purple worm. While me?
I turned back into a human and dove right into the purple worm's gullet, lesser maximize rod in hand.
Boom! Cure Moderate Wounds to save him just in time for the paladin to kill the purple worm and get him out. Man, I'm glad we rushed in to get him cause we would have lost him. Plenty of Lay on Hands later, he was feeling like a new man. From then on, we have a motto in our games. No bro left behind.
To me the PCs are always 'heroes' of the story. Now we have to define 'hero.' Merriam-Webster list two main definitions for hero:
1 a: a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability
b: an illustrious warrior
c: a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities
d: one who shows great courage2 a: the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work
b: the central figure in an event, period, or movement
Ignoring the gender specification. The PC's are always 'heroes' in the second sense. Meaning they are protagonists of the story. The story revovles around them. If the story revolves around an NPC or worse a 'DMPC' then its probably doomed to failure.
The protagonists don't necessarily need to be a 'Hero' (note captialization) in the first sense of the word. The best heroes of literature ususally had a flaw or internal conflict to deal with.
The PC don't have to automatically be 'Heroes' but they are the 'heroes' i.e. the protagonists of the story. As such their trials and challenges should relate to the story, they should be worthy of a hero, not be mundane and banal.