"You're not a REAL Hero!"

[Black Rose]

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.

Oh, I didn't think you did. I was simply pointing out that, IMO, someone who honestly espouses that opinion is into it more for getting to beat people up in a "socially accepted" manner.

[Kevin Schultz]

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

 

A hero is someone whose actions embody the virtues espoused by the society who labels them as such. That's why Hercules was considered an archtypical hero of the Greek people - his actions embodied the virtues of the ancient Greeks, even though he was more than a bit of an ***, got a lot of his friends killed, and (from what I recall) raped more than one Amazon in his day.

 

So - was Hitler a hero of the German people? Yep. For a time, anyway: he embodied their desire to overcome the situation they were in, and his actions radically transformed German society. So, while he isn't a hero to (most) Germans NOW, he was certianly their hero to most Germans during the late 1930's.

 

This is not to say that I agree with societal or moral relativism. Rather, the word "hero" is by definition a culturally-based word. That being said, most (stable) societies have a great many common virtues, including courage and self-sacrifice. No surprise there, as is seems resonable for a group to value someone who sacrifice their own well being for the good of the group, and who has the courage to maintain that conviction in the face of opposition.

 

Anyway, a hero of one culture is perfectly able to be the hero of another, inasmuch as both cultures have overlapping virtues (such as courage). It's just not absolutely necessary for a hero of one people to be the hero of another - Vlad "the Impaler" Tepes, for example, is a hero and cultural icon to certian cultures in Eastern Europe, but most of what he did would be considered by today's standard to be barbaric and cruel.

 

Re: heroism and stupidity - I will disagree with the belief that these are a continum. In fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with being an exemplar of societal virtues, but it DOES have a related issue to Courage. As stated before, courage is a common societal virtue, as is self-sacrifice for the greater good. Thus, the heroes of most soceities will have large amounts of both.

 

That being said, one who has courage is someone who stays in a dangerous situation until their job is done, and not one second longer. (That being the definition I got of 'courage' from a military digest I was reading.) Once your job is done, staying where you are isn't couragous: it's stupid. Thus, it sin't a continum - there's an explicit demarcation between the two.

[bwdemon]

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

 

Heroism, to me, applies to both the means used and the ends achieved. It's more heroic to do things out of your desire to do good than to do so for monetary or other personal gain. It's more heroic to pummel someone senseless, face-to-face, than to sneak up behind them and run a yard of steel through their heart. It's more heroic to incarcerate than to kill, in most cases.

 

Not all characters are capable of, or even designed for, heroic gameplay. If you want a heroic game, then make sure you have characters that fit the heroic mold. Moody-Loner-Kills-a-Lot probably isn't a good idea for a heroic game, nor are Glass-Jawed-Mentalist and Cowers-in-the-Corner-Invisikid. If your players want to play something less-than-heroic, then there are two good options and one bad option.

 

The bad option is to throw the character into a heroic game. This is bad, because they're immediately an outcast and they'll make some things too easy (boring for everyone else) while not contributing at all to others (boring to them). This can add conflict and drama to a game, so it isn't entirely bad, but the cost is usually too great, AFAIC.

 

The first good option is to make a game so they can get this out of their system. Fill it with all the sneaks and killers your characters care to play and tailor the game appropriately. My experience here is that the game doesn't hold a lasting appeal for players, but your experiences may vary. However, single-PC games actually fare very well under these conditions, so that may be an option if you've got the time and inclination.

 

The second good option, especially good if only one player wants a non-hero, is to let them GM so they can play non-heroic villains. This way, they can get the sneaky non-heroic stuff out of their system and the GM can enjoy the PC side of things on occasion.

[Kevin Schultz]

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

 

Heroism, to me, applies to both the means used and the ends achieved. It's more heroic to do things out of your desire to do good than to do so for monetary or other personal gain. It's more heroic to pummel someone senseless, face-to-face, than to sneak up behind them and run a yard of steel through their heart. It's more heroic to incarcerate than to kill, in most cases.

 

While I agree (generally) with your discusson of what makes a hero, I'd argue that those definitions are culturally-specific to modern Western thought. For example, I don't think the ancient Britons would have considered Beowulf to be less of a hero because he killed Grendel instead of trying to rehabilitate him. In fact, anyone who TRIED to rehabilitate Grendel would most likely have been considered a madman, or maybe a saint. Grendel was a monster, and by his actions showed that he deserved no mercy: to give him such would have been the mark of a coward and a fool.

 

Not to say that I specifically agree with that assesment of Grendel, but that's pretty much how the story goes, and how Beowulf is portrayed: he was a hero BECAUSE he killed Grendel, not despite of it. Nor do I think that the ancient Briton's societal standards of virtue are better than ours - I do think that society has (generally) moved forwards in terms of moral and ethical thought. However, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Beowulf was a hero to the ancient Britons: he was a hero because he couragously killed things that needed to be killed for the good of the people.

 

Now, because of that act, he may not be as much of a hero to you, or to many modern Westerners. But, again, that's my main point - heroism is culturally-defined. Your virtues may or may not necessicarily match up with the virtues of another culture, and as such their heroes may not be yours.

[bwdemon]

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

 

Beowulf, while he did kill his enemies, still acted heroically to a large degree. He fought face-to-face with his opponents, not relying on stealth (beyond feigned sleep) or easy kills. Had Beowulf been written such that he snuck up on Grendel and Grendel's mother and cut their throats as they slept, his acts would've been completely unheroic by pretty much every societies' definitions.

 

Grendel was a true monster, a maneater who did his worst in the dark of night while his prey slept. He wasn't human or even remotely humanized. In today's more liberal standards, his death would rank aside the death of a vicious rabid wolf. It was necessary, there was no option.

 

So rehabilitation/incarceration isn't mandated for heroism, which is why I qualified it above. Rehabilitation/incarceration is more stereotypically heroic in the super-hero context and we're on the Champions board, so I stuck with the context.

 

Many alleged heroes (mythical, historical, and current) are really crazed butchers of men, women, and children when viewed in more sensible light. Still, some heroic elements generally exist. The opponent is usually painted (rightly or wrongly) as truly despicable and worthy of death. They almost always act boldly, facing their opponent down with no regard to the odds (generally stacked against the hero). They fight because of honor, a duty, and/or a noble personal conviction.

[Enforcer84]

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

 

Whatever works.

[CrosshairCollie]

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

 

Whatever works.

 

Eh ... I wouldn't go THAT far, but I certainly see no problems with stealth, subtlety and deception in the process of heroism. It's just a matter of not hurting innocents in the process.

[David Johnston]

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

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackalope

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".

 

I have trouble just buying the idea that Batman fights crime in a "very smart" way.

[Zeropoint]

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

 

I have a hard time with the concept that, when other people's lives are on the line, a "hero" will give up any advantages he might have gained through skill or hard work and engage the enemy in a "fair fight."

 

For instance, if a SEAL team tracked down Osama bin Laden, and their leader ordered his men to stand down, dropped all his gear, and then started a hand-to-hand fight with bin Laden, I wouldn't call that heroic.

 

I'd call it ****ing stupid.

[David Johnston]

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.

 

Now, there's an interesting idea for an annoying NPC, a watered-down Superman who fights conventional crime and lightweights, but is never around when the serious junk is going down.

[cutsleeve]

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

 

I would just like to say one thing about the ressurection of this thread.

 

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

I have a hard time with the concept that, when other people's lives are on the line, a "hero" will give up any advantages he might have gained through skill or hard work and engage the enemy in a "fair fight."

 

For instance, if a SEAL team tracked down Osama bin Laden, and their leader ordered his men to stand down, dropped all his gear, and then started a hand-to-hand fight with bin Laden, I wouldn't call that heroic.

 

I'd call it ****ing stupid.

 

Bin Laden wouldn't fight fair. To some degree, supervillains _will_.

 

It's not heroic (by some standards anyway) to be the sneaker, more dastardly bastard. It's effective, and it can be the right thing to do, but those aren't relevant standards.

[wagnern]

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

 

it is all in how powers are used and the story. A dark hero who riskes his sanity and soul everytime he uses his powers and still uses them to help people is quit heroic. Just as Mr Invunerable is not at risk fighting random goon, Mr Mentalis is not, but just as Mr Invunerable is at risk when fighting Distructor the uber man, Mr Mentalist is at risk fighting Mentok the mind taker. (we don't borrow, we don't ask, we Take!). If a Necromancer or such summons a undead to fight, well, the Baddies are going to know that Geeking the Necromancer is much easer than the Summoned Monster. I think it is more of actions that count.