"You're not a REAL Hero!"

[Hermit]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Hermit' date=' have you ever read Kurt Busiek's [i']The Liberty Project[/i]? It deals with similar issues.

 

 

No, I hadn't. I'll try to keep an eye out for it. Thanks

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

That's not only vicious' date=' it's darn near impossible to attack back. I mean really, who carries around transdimensional weapons that can attack into the "Microverse"?[/quote']

 

That's a job for VPP Man, or for anyone with (attack power), Variable Advantage (+1/2 Advantage, +1 value).

 

Yep, there are a few people in my campaign who will be ready for Microman.

[BNakagawa]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Regardless' date=' the "SuperGuy isn't as much of a Hero - Johnny Normal Guest star is more heroic because he could have been hurt, but took selfless action anyway" moral is a staple of Silver and Bronze Age comics. Superman, Marvel Family and Thor scenes leap specifically to mind, but there's lots more out there.[/quote']

 

Precisely my point. The person that exposes themselves to more peril is more heroic than undetectableman or robotmaster or bunkerbrain.

 

Please note: this does not imply that invisiblementalistman is NOT heroic, just that he's LESS heroic than the guy who exposes himself to enemy fire while doing the hero thing.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Precisely my point. The person that exposes themselves to more peril is more heroic than undetectableman or robotmaster or bunkerbrain.

 

Please note: this does not imply that invisiblementalistman is NOT heroic, just that he's LESS heroic than the guy who exposes himself to enemy fire while doing the hero thing.

 

So it would be more heroic to expose oneself to enemy fire (needlessly), be KO'd and let the villain conquer the world than to use powers allowing the character to avoid detection, thus succeed in foiling the villain's plot without being exposed to attack?

 

To restrict "heroism" to "exposed to risk of physical harm" seems unduly limited to me.

[LoresLost]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

This disagreement on heroism reminds me of a story in a recent incarnation of DC's New Gods where a cops are helped by Orion and afterward is confronted by a detective deriding him a showboat "hero". Orion was offended and said to the effect "I am no hero, Those men over there are a hero." Then he grew to monstorous propotions and state "I am no hero. I am a god" and walked away.

 

Heros are defiined by sacrifice. And if powers exist then those who use then for the benefit of others instead self benefit are making a sacrafice.

[jackalope]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Risk and sacrifice do necessarily mean "physical harm".

 

Example: Bob is poor, uneducated white trash, and he has just moved into a new school district. During his second class, he strikes up a conversation with Marsha, one of the cool popular kids. He tells some jokes and is funny, and she decides he's okay. At lunch, several of the rich, popular kids begin teasing Bob about his JC Penny's jeans and off-brand sneakers. It's your standard social dominance game, they are expressing their superiority to Bob. Marsha, who is friends with and part of the rich, popular kid clique, decides to stand up for Bob. She confronts the ringleader of the mean kids, and points out that none of them bought their clothes, and that just because they have rich parents doesn't mean they are better people.

 

Marsha is a hero. She has done something exceptional (bucking social convention), she has done in out of a noble intent and motive (achieve social justice), and she has done so despite the risk to her own social standing.

 

Like wise, a doctor who sacrifices his time and energy and gives the entirety of his life to helping heal people is a hero. He has done something extraordinary, out of noble intent, and has made a sacrifice.

 

Several people have mentioned Invulnerable Man and that he is not risking himself by facing physical danger. These people are correct. Invulnerable Man is not heroic for battling evil in a physical way. If there is no risk to himself, then he is not risking anything, and therefore not heroic.

 

Superheros, because of their powers, require Supervillians and truly extraordinary challenges to be heros. But because they can overcome these SUPER challenges, they are SUPER Heros. The acts that make mere mortal men heroic and run of the mill daily encounters for superheros.

 

I may have already mentioned this, but someone like Spider-Man is not a hero because he stops robbers and muggers - those types present no challeneg to him - but because he battles menaces that CAN kill him, like Doc Ock and Green Goblin. Even Spidey himself doesn't consider foiling a bank job heroic, he consider such activities more along the lines of "excercise", "having fun", "releaving stress" and the like.

[Kristopher]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Risk and sacrifice do necessarily mean "physical harm".

 

Example: Bob is poor, uneducated white trash, and he has just moved into a new school district. During his second class, he strikes up a conversation with Marsha, one of the cool popular kids. He tells some jokes and is funny, and she decides he's okay. At lunch, several of the rich, popular kids begin teasing Bob about his JC Penny's jeans and off-brand sneakers. It's your standard social dominance game, they are expressing their superiority to Bob. Marsha, who is friends with and part of the rich, popular kid clique, decides to stand up for Bob. She confronts the ringleader of the mean kids, and points out that none of them bought their clothes, and that just because they have rich parents doesn't mean they are better people.

 

Marsha is a hero. She has done something exceptional (bucking social convention), she has done in out of a noble intent and motive (achieve social justice), and she has done so despite the risk to her own social standing.

 

Like wise, a doctor who sacrifices his time and energy and gives the entirety of his life to helping heal people is a hero. He has done something extraordinary, out of noble intent, and has made a sacrifice.

 

Several people have mentioned Invulnerable Man and that he is not risking himself by facing physical danger. These people are correct. Invulnerable Man is not heroic for battling evil in a physical way. If there is no risk to himself, then he is not risking anything, and therefore not heroic.

 

Superheros, because of their powers, require Supervillians and truly extraordinary challenges to be heros. But because they can overcome these SUPER challenges, they are SUPER Heros. The acts that make mere mortal men heroic and run of the mill daily encounters for superheros.

 

I may have already mentioned this, but someone like Spider-Man is not a hero because he stops robbers and muggers - those types present no challeneg to him - but because he battles menaces that CAN kill him, like Doc Ock and Green Goblin. Even Spidey himself doesn't consider foiling a bank job heroic, he consider such activities more along the lines of "excercise", "having fun", "releaving stress" and the like.

 

OK, so the doctor is a hero just for spending his life helping others, but Bulletproof guy isn't a hero unless he risks his life?

 

Double standard much?

[lapsedgamer]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

The comics writers always made an effort to put the characters into situations where there powers were not useful, so that they could show that they were truly heroic people. So you would have to do the same thing in a campaign every so often. You would either have to make a villian so much more powerul than the hero in question--able to beat him at his own shtick or take advantage of all his weaknesses--or strip him of his powers.

 

Look at Spider Man 2. Peter Parker still goes into the building after the kid, even though his powers are on the fritz. This scene brilliantly mirrors his actions in the first movie where he completes a similar rescue. Now he can be harmed by fire with or without his powers, but it took more guts to go in wthout them.

[BNakagawa]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

So it would be more heroic to expose oneself to enemy fire (needlessly), be KO'd and let the villain conquer the world than to use powers allowing the character to avoid detection, thus succeed in foiling the villain's plot without being exposed to attack?

 

To restrict "heroism" to "exposed to risk of physical harm" seems unduly limited to me.

 

What is it about exposure to enemy fire that makes it needless? If they aren't focussing their attention on you, they might be focussing it on your teammates. Or slaughtering normals. Villains do that sometimes.

 

There are plenty of people who fight crime without being exposed to it. The lab technicians who process fingerprints, or pull phone records to expose fraudulent alibis, or compare ballistics data to evidence are important to the process of the justice system. They are rarely if ever considered heroic. Are they important to the process of putting criminals behind bars? Certainly. Are they considered as heroic as combat troops or firefighters or beat cops? I doubt it.

[jackalope]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

OK, so the doctor is a hero just for spending his life helping others, but Bulletproof guy isn't a hero unless he risks his life?

 

Double standard much?

 

Yes, that was one of my points, that there is a different standard for superheros than regular heroes. If Bulletproof guy is only entering into fights he knows he can't lose, then his motives are entirely suspect. Maybe he's just showing off. He's most likely just being a public menace.

 

Were talking about a guy in a costume, right? A crimefighter, out there presenting himself as a crimefighter. Playing the role of a hero. But if he is only willing to fight crime that can't fight back, then how can he be heroic? Isn't that cowardly? He's presenting himself as a superhero, and superheros do not back down from risk. A superhero witha risk aversion complex is a posuer.

[Kristopher]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Yes, that was one of my points, that there is a different standard for superheros than regular heroes. If Bulletproof guy is only entering into fights he knows he can't lose, then his motives are entirely suspect. Maybe he's just showing off. He's most likely just being a public menace.

 

Were talking about a guy in a costume, right? A crimefighter, out there presenting himself as a crimefighter. Playing the role of a hero. But if he is only willing to fight crime that can't fight back, then how can he be heroic? Isn't that cowardly? He's presenting himself as a superhero, and superheros do not back down from risk. A superhero witha risk aversion complex is a posuer.

 

Or, you know, maybe smarter than most comic book heroes, depending on what you mean by "risk aversion".

 

Anyway, just being a superhero puts you and anyone you care about in some degree of risk. Sure, all those mooks you're beating up can't hope to hurt you unless they bring military-grade weapons, but their boss might be able to figure out your Secret ID, and have your house firebombed, or your kids taken hostage, or any number of things that just being a bulletproof toughguy won't protect you from.

[jackalope]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Or' date=' you know, maybe smarter than most comic book heroes, depending on what you mean by "risk aversion".[/quote']

 

Heroism and foolishness run hand in hand.

 

Generally, as a rule of thumb, the smarter you act, the less heroic you are. Like, consider Batman. Fights crime in a very smart way, barely qualifies as a hero.

[Guest Soulcatcher]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Heroism and foolishness run hand in hand.

 

Generally, as a rule of thumb, the smarter you act, the less heroic you are. Like, consider Batman. Fights crime in a very smart way, barely qualifies as a hero.

 

I'm not so sure. A hero can be very smart but simply makes a moral decision to take on someone or something very dangerous to help others. It is the moral decision to do something dangerous that makes a hero.

[Kristopher]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Heroism and foolishness run hand in hand.

 

Generally, as a rule of thumb, the smarter you act, the less heroic you are. Like, consider Batman. Fights crime in a very smart way, barely qualifies as a hero.

 

You might have a hard time selling the notion that Batman "barely qualifies as a hero".

[jackalope]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

You might have a hard time selling the notion that Batman "barely qualifies as a hero".

 

If he didn't have that Code vs Killing, there's no way he'd be a hero. I mean, his modus operendi is to strike terror into the hearts of criminals. He operates outside the law enforcing vigilante justice. His primary motivation is revenge, and he misdirects his anger at any and all criminals. But the thing he does that really keeps me from viewing him as a hero is this: he keeps a file on all the other heroes describing how to kill them! That's really, really paranoid.

 

Batman is a crimefighter yes, but I don't see him as operating out of noble intentions. Maybe the old, Adam West Batman, but the "Dark Knight" is more of an anti-hero than anything else.

[THartman]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Bah! A hero is simply someone who uses whatever abilities he or she has to do something for the betterment of society without any thought of reward or duty. I'm surprised nobody has brought up the dictionary definition yet. Pay attention to number three.

 

1: In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.

2: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

3: A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine.

4: The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.

 

As an aside...

 

Whoever said Batman's not a hero obviously hasn't paid attention to all the times Batman gets the crap beat out of him... All the times he gets put in traps and whatnot. That's not risking life and limb? He's not invulnerable so he HAS to be smart. He's still donating his time, energy, MONEY and whatever else can be listed to try to keep Gotham clean.

 

Edit: Okay, I conceed he's dark and whatnot, but he DOES save lives, stop robberies and so on. Perhaps revenge motivates him, but what he DOES helps people. Maybe he's not a four-color, upstanding, moral, perfect version of a hero, but he is still a hero. If nothing else, at least in the eyes of the people his actions help.

 

To whomever said it was more noble to donate time than money, let me point out... The person who donates money likely does some kind of job to earn that money. Jobs take time. Therefor by donating money they ARE, in effect, donating their time - just not directly.

 

Let me put forth a new moral quandry in a similar vein. Who would be more "heroic":

 

A professional who puts in a 50 hour week, makes good money to support his family and then donates the recompense for the last 10 hours of work to charity...

 

or

 

A person who puts in a 40 hour week, makes enough money to support his family and then donates 10 hours of service to the same charity?

 

Both have supported the charity. Both have spent the same number of hours away from their loved ones in the week. And in the end, the second example can't use their 10 hours of service to buy blankets or food, if those are needed. The tradeoff is that the first person's money will not represent them at a 1:1 rate.

 

I personally fail to see the 'heroic' difference between someone who can absorb a shot from a pistol running around jumping in front of police in shootouts... and someone who donates a huge sum of money to buy ALL said police bulletproof vests. It's different means to the same end - officers are saved.

 

Anyhow, that's my $0.027 (inflation )

 

-Todd

[Kristopher]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

If he didn't have that Code vs Killing' date=' there's no way he'd be a hero. I mean, his modus operendi is to [i']strike terror into the hearts of criminals.[/i]

 

You work with what you've got.

 

He operates outside the law enforcing vigilante justice. His primary motivation is revenge, and he misdirects his anger at any and all criminals. But the thing he does that really keeps me from viewing him as a hero is this: he keeps a file on all the other heroes describing how to kill them! That's really, really paranoid.

 

Who watches the watchers?

 

Batman is a crimefighter yes, but I don't see him as operating out of noble intentions. Maybe the old, Adam West Batman, but the "Dark Knight" is more of an anti-hero than anything else.

 

The Adam West TV show and the lowest depths of the banal CCA era in the comics don't really represent the truth of Batman, really.

 

Few have sacrificed and suffered more in the quest to make the world safer for everyday people. That makes Bats a hero.

[Black Rose]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

I've just managed to catch up on this thread, and I think the talking-at-cross-purposes problem is due to poor definitions. We're each using our own personal definition, some of which I imagine can't be adequately expressed in words, and when someone disagrees with us, we think they must be nuts. I mean, how could you disagree with me? I'm right, after all

 

In any case, I have my own definition to throw into the arena. And it all comes down to one word.

 

SACRIFICE

 

Obviously, not all sacrifices are equal, and not everyone will agree on the value of a given sacrifice. I mean, really, Bruce Wayne could be doing a lot of good with all that money by running Wayne Enterprises like a full-time CEO, buying up all of Gotham, "gentrify" everything, and hire some decent psychologists for Arkham. This Dark Knight gig is nothing more than Brucie-boy unsuccessfully trying to get over his parents' death. Right?

 

I hope my point got across to y'all.

 

Now, sure, I feel the poor guys who put themselves in front of the sharp end of the stick, with no real assurance of coming back from it, are making a bigger sacrifice than someone who cuts a $100 check to Amnesty International. Thing it, they are both sacrifices. And, we don't always see the true sacrifices a person makes.

 

Except in movies and comic books.

[Black Rose]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

"Those who can't engage in manly fisticuffs with wrongdoers need not apply!"

To me, this sounds more like "I've got a thing for beating the holy crap out of people while we both wear their underwear on the outside" and less like "I'm a hero." Don't get me wrong, it's great that Batman is there to lay a smackdown on someone as needed, but I'm inclined to go along with at least some of the Justice Lords concept and try to stop bad guys a bit more permanently then Arkham Asylum, home of Revolving Door Therapy.

[austenandrews]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

I never heard of a commando who resented the sniper covering him.

[cutsleeve]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

[Kristopher]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

"Those who can't engage in manly fisticuffs with wrongdoers need not apply!"

 

To me' date=' this sounds more like "I've got a thing for beating the holy crap out of people while we both wear their underwear on the outside" and less like "I'm a hero." Don't get me wrong, it's great that Batman is there to lay a smackdown on someone as needed, but I'm inclined to go along with at least some of the Justice Lords concept and try to stop bad guys a bit more permanently then Arkham Asylum, home of Revolving Door Therapy.[/quote']

 

I'd just like to point out that the above quote from me does not reflect a position I hold, but was rather a sarcastic comment I was making about a position I don't agree with.

[Rage]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Seconded. I understand About Comics is soon to release a compilation of those old Liberty Project issues' date=' if you haven't read the originals.[/quote']

theres already a letterbox version. it's pretty ok.

[Lemurion]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Going all the way back to the original post, I don't really play it up in most settings, but I don't play it down either.

 

Let's take a look at CaptainInvisibleDesolidSniperMan and BunkerBrainiac. Both of these characters are fully capable of being heroes, but their power sets make it much harder for them to be perceived that way. The first part is that if they are using their powers correctly, they won't be seen. This means they will have much less of a chance to build a public rapport. Also, their powers can't easily be used to save lives. If a child is trapped in a burning building you cannot snipe them to safety, nor is it heroic to either mind control them out of the building or send someone else in after them.

 

Just as true heroism is about sacrifice, comic book superheroism is about saving lives as much as fighting supervillains. Part of what the hero does is stand up as the target for the villain so they don't attack or target innocents.

 

This all combines to make things very hard for these hidden heroes. A large segment of the population doesn't trust anyone in bulletproof spandex, and nobody really trusts the guy who can take over your brain. So here are these people with dangerous powers that nobody really knows that could be hiding anywhere and reach out and "touch" someone.

 

They can be great crimefighters, they can do heroic deeds, but they are never going to be able to convince the public, or possibly even their teammates that they are as heroic as some of the others. Even Batman comes out of the shadows to save a child. The character who never saves a child is less of a hero.

[BNakagawa]

Re: "You're not a REAL Hero!"

 

Let me put forth a new moral quandry in a similar vein. Who would be more "heroic":

 

A professional who puts in a 50 hour week, makes good money to support his family and then donates the recompense for the last 10 hours of work to charity...

 

or

 

A person who puts in a 40 hour week, makes enough money to support his family and then donates 10 hours of service to the same charity?

 

Both have supported the charity. Both have spent the same number of hours away from their loved ones in the week. And in the end, the second example can't use their 10 hours of service to buy blankets or food, if those are needed. The tradeoff is that the first person's money will not represent them at a 1:1 rate.

 

I personally fail to see the 'heroic' difference between someone who can absorb a shot from a pistol running around jumping in front of police in shootouts... and someone who donates a huge sum of money to buy ALL said police bulletproof vests. It's different means to the same end - officers are saved.

 

Anyhow, that's my $0.027 (inflation )

 

-Todd

 

Hm. So if the ends justify the means, then Lex Luthor can be 'heroic'.

 

Buying BPVs for the police will reduce the casualties...for the police. Doesn't do much for the innocent bystanders caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

Somebody who actively intervenes can do something about that...not so the guy who cuts a big check to the local police precinct.

 

Face it. People are anthropocentric. We're always going to be more emotionally moved by a person who gets personally involved in a situation than somebody who pulls some strings, makes a phone call or cuts a check to let somebody else deal with it. Even if the net results are exactly the same.

 

City A is protected by a mysterious wizard who nobody has ever seen who casts a spell that causes thieves and muggers to sponteneously teleport into jail cells, disarmed and subdued. City B is protected by a strongjawed stranger who rushes to the aid of crime victims and defeats thugs with superior fighting skills and unrelenting zeal. Who do you think is more heroic?