Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Listener 06-01-05, 12:10 PM	Yes, this was inspired by a certain thread, and I thought I should direct some arguments over here, and see what people think about the concept of heroes. Some like there heroes to be strong and smart, the whole package. They are just what the doctor ordered to save the day. Playing this type is fun to me because where else can you play the "perfect" hero, the savior of the people from the Ork menance. Or there is the "Flawed" hero. The hero that didn't want or wasn't meant to become a hero. The dim-witted barbarian, the absent minded wizard, the Cleric who spent a bit too much time studying his books and not enough time outdoors, they all have some weakness that holds them down from attaining true greatness. Is either one really better? To me, the one you have more fun with is better. Both are equally "true" to D&D, and both have equal amounts of RP potential. What do you think?
Callista 06-01-05, 12:23 PM	I agree. All my "heroes" have had some sort of flaw; but they are quite definitely more idealized than not. Real people are flawed; real heroes are flawed. But you needn't make the flaws great at all, if you wish to have "heroic" characters; something as small as a tendency towards superstition or a background as a street orphan is quite enough, with one of these idealized people, to make them real. Flaws are necessary, or you'd have cardboard people; but they needn't be disabling.
The Listener 06-01-05, 12:25 PM	Flaws are necessary, or you'd have cardboard people; but they needn't be disabling. Are you talking about Statistical flaws or RP flaws? I agree if it is RP flaws, but disagree if it is stats flaws.
Callista 06-01-05, 12:27 PM	RP, obviously. Statistical flaws can be easily compensated for, and if you don't compensate, then you're just being silly...
75RD Drum Clip 06-01-05, 12:39 PM	I think both types of heroes can be fun to play. Playing only one type of character would grow old to me. I like the Anti-Hero types most.
Ragey 06-01-05, 01:01 PM	I like flawed heroes alot. I'm the only Good character who acts good in my party at the moment. I've gone out my way to rescue people instead of joining the bum rushing attackers and its saved my life numerous times. With a Vow of Peace, Poverty and Nonviolence, But of course my character isn't the total hero. If theirs a chance to run and save others, he rather do that then fight. I try to stay back from metagaming so much I've walked into traps and been looked at funny or laughed at by everyone but the DM. So sure, good hero, but a bit of a blunderer.
CzarGarrett 06-01-05, 01:14 PM	I rarely ever play a Hero-hero. Dark heroes, heroes by chance, those are the types I prefer. Sure, my Bard might have helped defeat the evil King, but he was there mostly so he could tell the story and make himself famous with a first hand account. My barbarian might have helped destroy a rampaging dragon, but the dragon's death is secondary to the fact that there are lots of weapons in its horde. To me, a completely goody-two-shoes hero just isn't fun. I want to have a dark side, I want to be able to step back and say 'I'm not risking my life there"
Thoronmir 06-01-05, 01:45 PM	I’ve engaged in this discussion several times over the past couple of decades, usually referring to the categories of “heroes” you suggest as a choice between “Superman” or “Spiderman” … one nigh indestructible whose only burden is finding the bad guys he needs to defeat, the other “flawed” and forced to cope with issues beyond his immediate challenge. I agree that each type of PC can be fun to play for different people. When I first started playing D&D (circa 1979), I preferred “Superman” … for at least the past decade or so, I’ve played nothing but “Spiderman.” I’ve accumulated a lengthy résumé of “reluctant heroes” and “anti-heroes” … each just an ordinary man rising to the challenges posed in the campaign … each battling his inner demons as well as some “outer” ones. My style of play hasn’t always meshed well with my DM’s view. When we first met, he was much more of a “Superman” guy than I ever was … PCs were paragons of heroism and were expected to behave accordingly. My first PC for him (I joined this group right about the time 3.0 was released) was a LG Human Ranger built using a 32 point buy (so low stats were never a problem). This PC had not suffered through the angst-ridden background that inflicts so many PCs … he had lived a normal life right up to his induction as a 1st level Ranger, tasked to wander the lands fighting Orcs and searching for signs of the Dark Lord’s return. I have to smile when I recall my DM’s reaction when I told him that, after years of roaming the countryside as a vigilant “sentry” against the rise of Evil, the stress and loneliness had begun to wear on my Ranger. You would have thought I had just announced that my PC turned to CE and had made it his personal mission to sunder the seals that kept the Dark Lord imprisoned. I had to reassure my DM that my PC had no intention of abandoning his duties, but that he’d simply begun to realize what he was sacrificing to fulfill his oath … he knew that his obligations would never allow him to enjoy a simple life with a wife and children and a home of his own. He had made a lifelong commitment to his Order and he wasn’t about to renege … but his loyalty could not stave off some regrets. Thus was my DM introduced to a living, breathing “reluctant hero” in his campaign … one who never shirked his duty, but, at times, questioned why he seemed chosen for such a destiny. Over the years I played with that DM, he grew increasingly comfortable with the concept that PCs need not be unmarred avatars of goodness and light. By the time we started our last campaign together (the group dissolved about year ago), the DM was willing to allow something novel in his campaign … an Evil PC. I played a Ranger-Rogue who would start the campaign as a NE agent of the BBEG sent to infiltrate and ultimately betray the party. My DM and I agreed that, over the course of the campaign, I would adjust my PC’s behavior to reflect his transformation from Evil to Good, due mostly to the positive influence of the other PCs. You see, I was eager to role-play something I’d never done before … the redemption of Evil. Our common scheme worked well and, at the climactic moment, my PC betrayed the BBEG to save the party, thus consummating his metamorphosis from “villain” to “anti-hero.” That PC turned out to be one of my favorite PCs ever in D&D. Not because of his stats, feats, and skills, but because of how much I enjoyed role-playing his evolution … his private torment as his sense of duty battled with his conscience … the rollercoaster ride of morality as he dipped and rose during his inner odyssey. After such a thrilling experience, who could go back to playing “Superman”?
kam_Islash 06-01-05, 01:48 PM	My hero is a blabbermouth (well, he used to be until he got a tongue lashing by a wizard). He also used to be a lech, until he got married. ///
Sinaz 06-01-05, 01:48 PM	I insist that my players make characters that have strengths and weaknesses. It's oh so very important to my style of play. I like to put the players in situations where there is more of an edge to role-playing because they have to overcome personal obstacles. In tems of stats- I always insist on a high stat vs. low stat. Mostly so there is more oppurtunity for he party to work together and share abilities. Consider: Mage: Uh... unlock? I don't know that spell. And the door isn't made of wood, so I can't burn it down. You're a rogue, why don't YOU open it? Rogue: Ok, let me try... (a couple seconds and a failed die roll pass) uh uh... it's too tricky for me. I could take another try and work on it, but it could take me an hour. Fighter: Stand back... I have another 'key' we can try (draws his recently aquired war hammer and prepares to bash the lock) If everyone is strong and intellegent, then everyone can accomplish the same tasks the same way... booooorrring.
weasel fierce 06-01-05, 02:05 PM	I prefer slightly above average, but not the superhero stuff. Its fine if you do, but it leaves me cold, both as a player and a DM. As for as stats go, if its AD&D, we go 4D6, drop lowest, arrange to taste, no rerolls. For classic D&D, its 3D6 in order, one reroll (of a single stat)
Gedrin 06-01-05, 02:09 PM	It really depends on the characters in question. In the previous campaign, the characters were well balanced heroes of their nation. They were good people who tried to do the right thing. Occasionally they developed hateful feelings or acted selfishly, but they were good people who were willing to risk their lives to protect innocents, even strangers and they were wholely devoted to the cause of their country. Of course, the theme of this campaign became the birth of their nation. In the current campaign, they're not heroes really. They're all ex-criminals who would like to make amends for their crimes, but there's a lot of bodies back that way. They're all selfish and vengeful as a habit, but they're not murderous anymore...so they're making progress. Of course, the theme of this campaign has become redemption. The next campaign is being billed as "The Hero Campaign". We're probably a year out from begining this campaign, but the ideas are starting to shape up around an epic style campaign. I'm not sure what those characters will be like, but I expect they'll be aimed at becoming heroes of the ages.
snowlynx 06-01-05, 03:16 PM	Hrm...my characters always have flaws. Sometimes, this flaw is just being too naive. Trying to play 'perfect' would frustrate me, because I've never been in a campaign where I was so omnipotent that I always knew what the best course of action was, nor am I always guarenteed to suceed or fail. I wouldn't want it that way anyway; that wouldn't be much of a challenge. I don't know that my flaws are always the sorts you speak of. For example, some of my characters are quite capable with no stat weaknesses, but have some personality trait- greed, or a vengeful streak, for example. Our games are heavy enough in roleplaying that yes, these two can get a character in trouble.
lordsloth 06-01-05, 04:16 PM	I generally do not play noble virtuous knights of all that is good fluffy. Generally my characters do what they do mostly out of self preservation or improvement (neutral evil is my thing normally :) That being said it can be fun every once in a while to play an over the top paladin in a nutty campaign :) I played a paladin once that was all well and good for the helping the helpless and such, but he got into barfights for pinching barwenches in the behind while drunk (he was a dwarf :)
LosGunD 06-01-05, 06:12 PM	I enjoy playing whatever comes to mind. The more amazing or intriguing the story of how he got there, the better. Or the better the plan of where he's going and his hopes and dreams, the better. I've only made one character without flaw or dinstinction, and I never will again, even considering the fact that he's the only survivor of the group we played in before. My characters often have flaws such as greed, or a broken past. I like the broken hero, or the anti-hero, the most. A man forced by a demon to kill his family and live his life after?! Woohoo! A man unsuccessfully attempting to right the wrongs of his past? Awesome. I need something in my characters to make them stand out. It doesn't really even have to be a flaw. But if it will improve the experience or offer a solution to the problem, I'm all for it!
CannonFodder2244 06-01-05, 07:36 PM	I don't play heroes - I play folks who are just too dumb to heed common sense and get a real job as commoners. Though, many seem to have a craven mercenary streak in them.
mcnoo 06-01-05, 07:51 PM	I never used to play heros, it was all anti-heros, flawed do gooders, and the purely apathetic, but lately i've picked up a taste for the heroic. I started a neutral good fighter purely because the party needed a tank, and suddenly I've been sucked into the whole chivalry and saving the wrold mentality. D&D was usually an exacape from my nautally chivalrous "nice guy" meantality, but it really does feel good to play it in game, maybe it's just the change, but there's just something about seeing the mindflayer you're up, against is unarmed, and purely for fairness throwing aside your weapon and shield, telling the party to stay back and slugging it out unarmed. Admittedly this an epic campaign and the character's a temproary measure while my drow is busy ruling the world back on the material plane, so it's an easy fight and I don't care if i die, but it feels good to be the hero once in a while. It's nice to visit, but you wouln't want to live there.
Super Guy 06-01-05, 08:04 PM	Let's see... my strongest characters (speaking level here, starting from a low level and advancing to become "Heroes") would be Bronn, Sandor, Gnyark'yil, and I suppose I can count Bisenclaire. Bronn: Dwarven Cleric of Olidimarra. He was a blast. Couldn't turn worth a dime. But he was strong as hell and very funny. Chaotic Neutral, he was in it for the adventure and the money. Yet, he saved the world. I'd say he's definitely not a heroic hero. Heh, eventually he became level 20 in an epilogue and ascended to Immortal status, and was Olidimarra's party bouncer. He wore a specially crafted golden dollar-sign as his holy symbol. Bling bling! :P Sandor: Originally could've portrayed the common man's hero, because he was neutral and an all-around fair, average guy. Human fighter. I played him in two campaigns, one was 100 years later, during which time he had exiled himself to the Astral Plane to save himself from the disastrous end of a campaign. Tolaris brought him the Elixir of Youth to take him back to the Material Plane. He had been driven insane prior to this, and was fueled over 100 years by nothing but pure hatred for the BBEG that he failed to kill. He hated him so much that his own life meant nothing, though he protected it at all costs so as to ensure that Zenlack would die. Eventually, Zenlack did die, and at the hands of Sandor, who promptly died thereafter. A hero? No, a self-serving paranoid hatred-fueled guy that's as likely to chop through an orphanage to kill Zenlack than not. Gnyark'yil: My most powerful character, a Gnoll Fighter, later turned werewolf. This guy had a rockin' history and background. He was evil, but eventually turned neutral after the campaign ended catastrophically because of him, and this change was due to events in his history. As far as villainy goes, he was not the villain-villain. His evil was through sheer disregard for life but he was too apathetic to do much unless prompted. Bisenclair: Human Monk. He's obsessed with nature, and is now True Neutral (due to a prestige class I made. I usually don't use non-core stuff, but I wanted this prestige class and the DM allowed it). He fought to save the world because he felt if he didn't, it'd hurt him. If the main villain wasn't trying to take over the world, chances are Bisenclair would've said "Screw this, I'm going to live in the forest". Not really someone little kids should look up to. The myriad other characters were in lower level campaigns, so I'm not going to consider them heroes of the world, since saving the world wasn't their goal.
PlutoniumKnight 06-01-05, 10:42 PM	The elven fighter (uses a bow) i am playing right is nuetral with slightly evil tendancies. He isn't the nicest person and worships the elven deity of war. Does stuff for cash and has a rather dark personality. He has a fiancee, the only real happy part of his life. The person in the party he hates the most is a monk with a vow of poverty. Recently took some of his split of the cash from an adventure. Warns the monk that if the annoys him he will die. He lives for his love and war. Doubt I'm going to go good maybe shifting to evil. He is fun to play and not the most heroic.
Kintaran 06-01-05, 11:37 PM	The one time I played a paladin, he was a cynical, wise-ass knight of Saint Cuthbert. He drank, though not enough to get really drunk, and had no tolerance for fools. No ranks in Diplomacy, since to him, it was just sweet-talking people into being nice and friendly. He was lawful good, just a particularly sarcastic incarnation of it. He didn't have a mount, he didn't wear shiny armor, or even carry a shining sword. He had a heavy great maul, patchwork plate, and a definite willingness to use them. He was such an incredibly blunt character. It was amusing to play, especially with a group that thinks paladins should be the tea-drinking, high-speaking pansies that never get off of their high horse. Even more amusing, in-game reactions. "Wait, HE's a paladin?!? What sort of insane god would make him a paladin?!" I like characters like this. Lawful good, but incredibly sarcastic, with a healthy does of cynicism. The only reason they are lawful good is because, despite all that they say, they still pitch in, help out, do what they can. Far from the classic image of heroic, saintly lawful good types.
Flushmaster 06-02-05, 01:42 AM	I don't play heroes - I play folks who are just too dumb to heed common sense and get a real job as commoners. Though, many seem to have a craven mercenary streak in them. That's generally what my characters are like as well. They might be travelling with a super goodie-two-shoes (or several), but don't hesitate to point out when their companions act more idealistic than smart. Quite a few are either greedy or at least partially cold and uncaring, which is why most of my characters have neutral alignments (and it's not so "I can do good and evil both because I'm neutral" because I think anybody that says that needs slapped). In real life I do try to be a nice, helpful, and caring person, even if "nice" is sometimes resisting the urge to beat the snot out of somebody that I believe fully deserves it. I play D&D as a "vacation from reality" so I usually like to have my characters often say things like "no, I don't give a rat's ass" or "yeah, but what's in it for me?" Even if a character has a motivation to take down bad guys, that doesn't mean that they have to have good reasons for it. A recent character of mine, Natine the warmage, had been a child when her family was killed in an invasion (I flipped a coin for gender and it came up female). Her parents, retired adventurers, cast invisibility on her and her teenage brother (mother was a sorceress), sent them off to the garrison fort, and went out to help any others that they could save during the surprise, night invasion of their home city. They never came back because they were killed in the fighting that night, her brother joined a military academy to become a successful officer in the army, and Natine enthusiastically went off to a warmage academy not so she could protect others but so she could learn to take care of herself. She later took up adventuring and would jump at opportunities to dispose of bandits, murderers, tyrants, etc, but not out of a motivation for justice but a personal hatred of such people. If unsure what spell to use, Natine invariably goes with a lightning bolt because her last memory of her mother was watching her fry a squad of raiders with that same spell as her brother dragged her by the arm to the safety of the garrison; electrocuting an enemy makes her kind of warm and fuzzy inside, but she doesn't tell most people that because they're likely to freak out. She's not a homicidal maniac, and is in fact extremely disciplined and methodical (benefits of the militaristic training of her formative years) and is quite honorable, always sticking to her word. If you catch her in a good mood she's even pleasant company, but not what most people would call a hero; she's too mean for that. The closest I've came to playing the "heroic hero" was with Mervo, who is quite possibly still my favorite character. He started his career as a chaotic neutral evoker, and between the small wizard hit die and the lightness of his elven frame he was really not eager at all to be anyplace near an enemy. Except that nasty things had shiny things, so his policy upon meeting strangers was scream first, cast magic missile second, and (if they were still there) draw his bow as soon as he ran out of spells. He was also downright bat s*** loco. His companions managed to keep him out of trouble most of the time and were more than happy to rough him up when they decided he needed a lesson in manners (such as the time he rpeatedly launched spitballs at the princess we rescued; in Mervo's defense I still insist that she deserved it and that I'd do the same thing myself). About the time we finished our first quest, when we were all at level four (and Mervo was just getting some better spells) the DM decided to pull a fast one and try to straighten Mervo out a bit by writing in a bit where he discovered what appears to be an ancestral weapon that he is heir to (he'd been orphaned as a child and raised by an uncle who didn't talk much about his parents; I was being lazy with the backstory and the DM took advantage of it). Despite his paranoia and misgivings about a sword that's talking to him, his greedy streak couldn't pass up this opportunity, so he picks up the intelligent Holy Avenger, fails the will save, and becomes a paladin. He still wasn't completely stable and was still greedy (now justifying himself by spending as much cash he could get ahold of on magical adventuring gear to further the cause of good), and was often a bit reluctant to do particularly dangerous things, but eventually did. Half of the time his sword, "Normie," talked him into it as a sort of voice of conscience and the other half of the time he justified it by telling himself "once I do this the wenches at the bar will be all over me" (nothing that I've seen says that a Paladin of Heironious has to be celibate, just honest and good, and nothing has convinced me yet that mutually consensual intercourse is an evil act). Quite an interesting character, aside from being the only wizard/paladin I've ever seen, and one of the most memorable I've ever played.