Heroism : Morals, Ethics or Power?

[nijineko]

please forgive me if i seem over simplistic in either my understanding or suggestion... but isn't the reason that the characters get out of hand is that the dm allows it?

i'd like to address many of the examples i've seen referenced, rather than any particular individual or situation.

it seems that in each case of characters running rampant is due to the fact that the natural consequences of the player/character actions are not being applied by the dm in question, be it deliberate or not on said dm's part. this can be for a variety of reasons some of which have already been mentioned. however, in some cases, it is perhaps because the players reject what the dm has decided are the natural consequences.

as i'm sure everyone is already aware of, these sort of social games assume cooperation and mutual understanding on the part of all participants. when one, some, or most do not agree, then the game falls apart, regardless of what one might try to do to fix it. diplomacy and the like requires discussion, resolution, and agreement in order to work.

to be honest, i don' t get the whole being evil thing. it simply does not appeal to me. i've mentioned before that evil=auto-npc in any of my campaigns, and i simply won't play with groups or players with evil pcs. this has resulted in dry-gaming spells years in length. some of my games are taking place over the phone or via pbp at a rate of one post every month or four, and one phone session a year or so, just so that i can play with the specific people in question. i'd rather play patiently with good people, than not play at all, or play with bad gamers.

d&d is a game of HEROic fantasy, after all. generally speaking, even by the designers, the assumption is that the players are the heroes.

getting back to the individual situation from the OP, it sounds like you've really tried hard, and there are just some seriously different goals.

i guess my comments are all pretty much stating the obvious and not much help. sorry.

[Basket Burner]

Heroic fantasy is a measure of power, not morals. The default assumptions of the game involve ganging up on weaklings and at least attempting to run away from your equals and betters. Not exactly noble. Not to mention all of the hobo related jokes.

[nijineko]

Heroic fantasy is a measure of power, not morals. The default assumptions of the game involve ganging up on weaklings and at least attempting to run away from your equals and betters. Not exactly noble. Not to mention all of the hobo related jokes.

huh. to be honest, that thought never occurred to me. heroism is inseparably connected to moral and ethical beliefs in my head. thanks for bringing that particular aspect of my thoughts to light. i've seen enlightened self interest, and even selfish interests resulting in heroism, but it is always directly attached to a moral and/or ethical stance, even one as low as, "i can still use them and having them in debt to me will serve my purposes well, so i'll save their life."

i even cringed when i tried to think of heroic defined as a power scale divested from moral and ethical beliefs. *pause for thought* after considering both sides of that, i think i have decided that i will stick with the moral/ethical connotations of "heroic", and not just due to comfort zone either. i feel disagreement with the idea, and i think that most fantasy games of the 'heroic' stripe (as opposed to the gritty or dark types) support the idea of heroic characters as the moral and ethical heroes of the storyline, even if some have issues.



@libertad: is that what the kudos thing is for? i hadn't tried it until your response to me. i'm not much better off. ^^ i suspect my shooting down of questionable rules interpretations by actually asking the designers to clarify their original intent in the psionics section is detracting from my popularity on the boards. =P

[Basket Burner]

Heroic fantasy is a measure of power, not morals. The default assumptions of the game involve ganging up on weaklings and at least attempting to run away from your equals and betters. Not exactly noble. Not to mention all of the hobo related jokes.

huh. to be honest, that thought never occurred to me. heroism is inseparably connected to moral and ethical beliefs in my head. thanks for bringing that particular aspect of my thoughts to light. i've seen enlightened self interest, and even selfish interests resulting in heroism, but it is always directly attached to a moral and/or ethical stance, even one as low as, "i can still use them and having them in debt to me will serve my purposes well, so i'll save their life."

The concepts first came about in Greek mythology I believe. They might have been heroes to their own people, but they were total assholes to everyone else. More to the point, they were held in high regard because they did awesome things and succeeded, not because they were good people. That reflects in the game fairly well as most of them are set in similar time frames, so even though the world itself is drastically different it's treated as if it isn't, and in any case it shouldn't come as a surprise that most "heroes" are total jerks. Even the good aligned characters are breaking into intelligent creature's homes and killing them and taking their belongings based on the color of their skin. It's something best not thought about for too long.

i even cringed when i tried to think of heroic defined as a power scale divested from moral and ethical beliefs. *pause for thought* after considering both sides of that, i think i have decided that i will stick with the moral/ethical connotations of "heroic", and not just due to comfort zone either. i feel disagreement with the idea, and i think that most fantasy games of the 'heroic' stripe (as opposed to the gritty or dark types) support the idea of heroic characters as the moral and ethical heroes of the storyline, even if some have issues.

D&D certainly does not. Even when you ignore all of the outright negative things, effective play has a lot more in common with military special forces than anything else. Go in, secure the area (with a spell to the face), get out. Playing hero is a great way to get yourself killed.

@libertad: is that what the kudos thing is for? i hadn't tried it until your response to me. i'm not much better off. ^^ i suspect my shooting down of questionable rules interpretations by actually asking the designers to clarify their original intent in the psionics section is detracting from my popularity on the boards. =P

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Just because people like you doesn't mean you know your stuff, and just because you are capable doesn't mean you will be well liked.

[Prime32]

Agreeing with the stuff on heroism, and adding that classical heroism amplifies a character's moral heroism in people's minds.

Fate/Zero had a discussion on heroes, which appeared in the most recent episode of the anime adaptation.

(click to show/hide)

“I don’t understand what is there to be laughing about. As kings, we should naturally sacrifice ourselves, and strive to create a better country!”

“No, you’re wrong.”

In a firm, rock-like voice, Rider objected.

“It’s not the king sacrificing for the nation. It’s the nation and the people sacrificing their lives for the king. You got it backwards.”

“What-?!”

Saber could no longer suppress her own anger. She shouted loudly.

“──Isn't that a tyrant's rule?──Rider, Archer, you bastards are nowhere near a king! Heretics!"

“True. We are tyrants, therefore we are heroes.”

Rider answered without so much as a change in his facial expression.

“We take full responsibility for our nations. Therefore, Saber. Listen to me. If a king is not content with his own kingdom, he is a weak ruler. A weak ruler is a worse king to have than a tyrant!”

Unlike Archer, who had ridiculed her for all this time, Rider had rejected her from the basis of her ideals. Saber’s brows narrows as she retorted sharply.

“Alexander, you…Your own empire. It became four separate warring factions that quickly disappeared into the sands of history. At that ending, you don't have any regrets? If you can redo it, you'd want to save your motherland...aren't you thinking about that?”

“No.”

Raising himself to his full height, the King of Conquerors met Saber’s furious gaze with his own.

“No, I do not. If the actions of me and my generals lead to the eventual demise of my own nation, then I will accept it for what it is! Yes, I will grieve. Yes, I will shed tears. But I will not have a single regret!”

“…What?”

“Don’t you even dare suggesting something as stupid as an attempt to rewrite history! Such an idiotic action, is an insult to all of humanity who lived during my time!”

In response to Rider’s haughty declaration, Saber shook her head.

“What you’re saying is only the glory of a simple fighter. The people won’t wish for such things. Salvation would be their prayer."

“You’re saying they want the king’s salvation?”

Rider shrugged as he laughed.

“I don’t get it! What’s the point of such a useless thing?”

“That is the true worth of a king!”

This time, it was Saber’s turn to answer arrogantly.

“A correct governance, a lawful society, all subjects would probably be wishing for them.”

“Are you a slave to this “correctness,” then?”

“You could say that. The only one fit to rule is someone who would willingly give themselves up for an ideal.”

Without any hint of hesitation, the young King of Knights nodded.

“Through the king, the people could understand law and order. The king should not express something that would disappear upon the king’s death, but rather something more precious.”

At Saber who had proclaimed that firmly, while displaying a feeling as if he pitied her somewhere, Rider let out a deep sigh.

“That is not a path taken by a human being.”

“Correct. As king, we cannot hope for a normal life.”

To become the perfect ruler, to become the embodiment of the ideals, she was willing to give up her body and throw away her emotions. [...] From then on, she became a legend of victory, a synonym of praises and dreams.

There was pain, there was disappointment, but within it was the radiance of victory. An unchangeable ideal which still supported her sword arm.

“King of Conquerors! A king like you could never understand my own beliefs! You’re nothing but a bully who was blinded by his own desires!”

Saber shouted sternly. Rider’s eyes immediately widened as he answered in response.

“A desireless king is no better than a flower vase!"

Rider’s loud roar, plus his gigantic body, made him appear more fearsome.

“Saber, you just said that you needed to 'sacrifice for your ideals.' Indeed. You’re some saint – so holy that no one could ever hope to come near you. But who would be willing to die for their empty beliefs? And who would be thinking about this so-called saint day and night? You could only comfort the people, but not lead the people. The only way to bring country and people upon the right path is to present those desires, and the glory that could be found only in legends.”

Draining his cup, the King of Conquerors corrected.

“As king, you must have stronger desires than anyone else. You must be more magnificent, more easily angered than everyone else! He should be both pure and chaotic, a man who was more real than any other man. Only through this, could your subjects be impressed by the king, and only this, would the message of 'if only I was king, that would be wondrous' would be imprinted upon the people’s heart”

“Such a way of kingship… where on earth is the justice?”

“It doesn’t exist. Justice is unnecessary in the principles of a king. That's exactly why there is no remorse.”

“…”

[oslecamo]

Funny you mention that Prime32, since

(click to show/hide)

Artur's Britannia ended up enduring and prospering, while Alexander's empire was fragmented in tinier pieces over the centuries.

Also young? Saber's at least four times the age of Rider!

And that's a key diference between the "heroism" in the ancient greece and the "heroism" of the medieval ages. People ended up geting fed up with gloryhog heroes that always tought first about themselves. They wanted heroes that would be willing to sacrifice themselves for those weaker than them. Justice. Chivarly. Selfness. A knight's ideals (enphasis on ideals, not saying that's how reality ended up working).

Lots of people want to play that kind of good. Not saying there's no room for psycho-heroes, but selfness leaders are also a very important part of legend.

Or would you rather fully go to ancient greece style, where womens were treated as objects, children were handy sacrifices to bribe gods and said gods would randomly screw you just for the evulz?

[ImperatorK]

Also young? Saber's at least four times the age of Rider!

[oslecamo]

Also young? Saber's at least four times the age of Rider!

Dunno if you know the basic history so

(click to show/hide)

Basically legendary heroes from the past are being summoned to the present to fight for the Holy Grail.

Saber is king/queen Artur(ina), which aparently was a girl crossdressing as a man all the time because a women on the throne wouldn't be well looked. Avalon (Excalibur's scabard) granted her eternal youth so she remains looking as if in her teens, but king Artur's deeds covers over a century before she's in her deathbed and is turned into a servant for the Holy Grail.

Rider on the other hand is Alexander the Great, that dies on his early twenties due to chronic alchoolism and a life of other extremes taking a too heavy toll on his body. Thus Saber lived a lot more than Rider.

[Basket Burner]

Funny you mention that Prime32, since

(click to show/hide)

Artur's Britannia ended up enduring and prospering, while Alexander's empire was fragmented in tinier pieces over the centuries.

Also young? Saber's at least four times the age of Rider!

And that's a key diference between the "heroism" in the ancient greece and the "heroism" of the medieval ages. People ended up geting fed up with gloryhog heroes that always tought first about themselves. They wanted heroes that would be willing to sacrifice themselves for those weaker than them. Justice. Chivarly. Selfness. A knight's ideals (enphasis on ideals, not saying that's how reality ended up working).

Lots of people want to play that kind of good. Not saying there's no room for psycho-heroes, but selfness leaders are also a very important part of legend.

Or would you rather fully go to ancient greece style, where womens were treated as objects, children were handy sacrifices to bribe gods and said gods would randomly screw you just for the evulz?

While I did mention greek heroes being jerks that extends far beyond that pseudo period of time. In the medieval era being a hero involved killing the other guys in order to make territory for yourself. The knights bullied the peasants. Now I am not saying that's a good thing, but I am saying that's how things were, and that's probably part of the reason why D&D is how it is. The other part being going from ambusher to ambushee means going from winner to loser.

[nijineko]

the ethical / moral hero concept predates the greeks by quite a bit. but i take your points. a lot of our current ideas are based on various bits of history with greater and lesser (usually lesser) degrees of accuracy of transmission over generations. thanks for pointing all that out.

[InnaBinder]

I've had professors of Arthurian Literature who argued that the shift to chivalric ideals shown in those legends corresponds to having the troubadours tell the stories primarily to the noble women for the first time, rather than the noble men.  The men were off killing Muslims in the Crusades, and the stories' emphasis got shifted away from the violence of the early Latin and Celtic myths to hold the interest of medieval women.

[nijineko]

I've had professors of Arthurian Literature who argued that the shift to chivalric ideals shown in those legends corresponds to having the troubadours tell the stories primarily to the noble women for the first time, rather than the noble men.  The men were off killing Muslims in the Crusades, and the stories' emphasis got shifted away from the violence of the early Latin and Celtic myths to hold the interest of medieval women.

hahahahah. i would so believe that. not that medieval women were necessarily immune to the lure of violence... after all, sometimes they were the ones responsible for keeping the castle intact until the hubby got home. i would not be surprised if a lot of the more imaginative defenses were actually invented by women. they had to work off their irritation and frustration at the absentee hubby somehow?