Ok, I agree with your first two rules. But the third is complete drek.
"D&D takes care of this by making sure characters are good or neutral. But I don't think that is truly enough. This is not a question of overlying beliefs. This is a question of will the character risk their life and livelihood to help another? This is about not being self-centered. This is about being someone that the party can trust when the ork dung hits the wind mill. This isn't something that you say during character description, it is something that you do and (hopefully) you do early on. If your character makes some sort of self sacrifice, even a small one, in the first session, the party is already on your side.
A lot of players don't like this rule, but it is the very last rule that I bend. We are roleplaying to be heroes, so design a hero or don't play. Every single hero in books and movies was intrinsically good at heart, no matter how otherwise messed up, or they weren't a hero. It is the definition."
And what exactly about "self-sacrifice" makes a hero? Can a character not be a greedy thief, who chooses to work with the party because he knows he'll get more loot than being on his own? He did help slay that dragon which was bi-monthly torching the surrounding villages, but he did it because he wanted a piece of the treasure hoard. And wait a sec, who said the point of RPing is to play a "hero" anyhow? I've been part of many an evil campaign that ran successfully because the party members knew that they couldn't achieve their goals on their own. You refer to movies and books for your definition of a hero. That's just ONE definition. Here's another from Dictionary.com:
"he·ro P Pronunciation Key (hîr)
n. pl. he·roes
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."
By your narrow definition, Robert E. Howards' Conan would not be a hero, because everything he did was self-centered.
Damn straight. I'd further suggest to ban such selfless heroes because the are unrealistic. No one gives blood to help a stranger. They do it because they're pressured by social standards and guilt ads. There are no people on Earth who can put another human being in front of their own needs. Groups form because survival instincts reward social interaction, similar to, but much less powerful than, the reproductive insticts that make people enjoy sex. Not because we like other people.
To add to that, if at any time a random people can have the character's morals and eithics described and reliably identify the protagonists and antagonists, then either the GM failed or you did. Either way, your game is shit.
__________________
"My good Sir - while the answers to the questions I am about to pose are all readily quite apparent from both your swine-like bearing and unintelligible speech, I must nevertheless ask the following queries to determine what is the matter with you! Are you thick-headed? Were you born fallow-minded? I, sir, am the God-Damned Oscar Wilde!"
Last edited by Antonidas; 02-21-2006 at 12:28 PM..
Wow... such bile and vitriol. I thought most of that stuff stayed in those other fora. But I had a feeling when I was reading this that Rule 3 might cause some backlash. Regardless, the reaction seems a bit over-the-top.
But I'll throw my hat in by saying that I agree with the generalities of Rule 3, if not with the specific examples given. Frankly, the very idea of an "evil" campaign bores me; my mind and heart are most excited by the prospect of gallantry, heroism, and epic deeds, or in exploring the nature of our epic and mythic archetypes. And I know I am not alone--if the success of certain types of hollywood-blockbusters is any indication, your average-joe American prefers heroic stories as well.
But what constitutes a hero, or what it means to be "good at heart" I think can be more loosely defined than by using the single metric of "self-sacrifice" as it is typically meant--that being of putting one's self in harm's way or mortal danger for the benefit of another. But I suspect that your average person really is "good at heart", and willing to give up something good of their own for the good of another, but the threshold often stops short of harm's way. Sometimes, this small sacrifice is nothing more than doing something nice for someone, or saying a kind word. What frequently separates our mythic heroes from our every-day heroes is the degree to which they are willing to go out of their way to help others, but even the culturalization, socialization, and succumbing to "survival instincts" that "reward social interaction" lends itself readily and easily to heroic action. Whether from a deeper human understanding of the nature of good, or from millenia of socialization and survival, a mother who sacrifices herself for her child is frequently viewed as noteworthy and praiseworthy, and murder and larceny nigh-universally condemnable.
To cite a given example, even the thief that slays the dragon for the express purpose of gaining a share of the horde still qualifies as Heroic under this definition. Battling a dragon typically is no cake-walk--that thief has put himself in the mother-of-all-mortal-perils, knowing full-well that he may very well die for what he is doing, and that if he succeeds the town will be saved. That his underlying motivation is his greed only highlights the humanity and heroism of his deed. In fact, this leads very easily to the almost cliched situation where the victorious thief then tries downplay the enormity of what he has done, in the face of the adulation of his benefactees, and then grows to harbor a secret happiness and pride for having saved the day, while continuing to insist that he's nothing more than a greedy thief. While his baser intentions may normally be held in contempt, they are eclipsed by the magnitude of his more laudable self-sacrifice, and this is what will be remembered about him.
And even self-serving heroes, like Conan, who quest for glory and fortune are well-remembered because their actions become metaphors for the socializing and culturalizing forces that created these heroes. We sense that there is some underlying motive force that create these icons, and they become the archetypes and paragons of certain qualities or characteristics that we find admirable. Conan, for instance, is independent and strong-willed. He makes his own fortune, and from what I've seen of the movies (having not read any of the books) he's willing to uphold and defend the weak, or at least tolerates them, and respects strength.
I disagree with rule 3 as well but from a different point of view. If the games we are talking about are heroic fantasy, or spy or whatever where the main protagoniststs generally hold up the rule of law, then this is a decent rule. However take something like the gangster genre, where the protagonists are generally out to sieze power from others. This guys are generally not good at heart, and are frequently totally the opposite, out for power above all else. Basically what I am saying is that it is possible to have characers who are selfish and arrogant work together, and it creates a different type of conflict within a party then the standard D&D group.
Cheers
Iain
I am certainly coming up with my own definition of hero, something along the lines of "someone who takes action for the good of the whole for what is likely personal loss."
In fact, in my daily life I would define hero as exactly that sort of person that Antonidas says doesn't exist. certainly they are rare, and maybe, just maybe that is why society calls them heros.
Remember - no one is a hero unless the society dubs them so. That might be any even better definition.
And it is likely the rarity of those people makes us want to play them in fantasy games. (Although, I'll admit, I'd like to be one in real life, just the choices are a lot harder.)
I have the same issue as Karro with Conan - I've only seen the movie. (There was only one, really.) But I would venture to say that Conan was written as a solo-adventure, and the rules are certainly different in that situation.
Sure, being Conan would be fun. But would you have wanted to be in a campaign with Conan?
But when it boils down to it, rule 3 is about trust. Lack of trust in groups always leads to backstabbing, arguing, lack of cohesion and. ironically, power-gaming. If you find those things fun, then you are already a step ahead of me with your characters.
And the rules don't gaurantee fun, just like fun without them is sure possible. What they do is "play the odds". These are the things that will generally make better campaigns - a set of guidelines for those in need of help. If you already make great characters and have great campaigns, why are you reading campaign advice columns?
Okay, that was rhetorical. Your reading advice columns because your active interest to always improve allows you to assimilate new knowledge into your existing expertise, take the few bits you need and chuck the rest. That's how you get better, after all.
Anyway, I looked up "Drek" in my dictionary and couldn't find a definition. So I'll go with "Wizard poop"
Greg
(I know, I am wordy. . .that's why I decided to write a column. . .)
"But I'll throw my hat in by saying that I agree with the generalities of Rule 3, if not with the specific examples given. Frankly, the very idea of an "evil" campaign bores me; my mind and heart are most excited by the prospect of gallantry, heroism, and epic deeds, or in exploring the nature of our epic and mythic archetypes. And I know I am not alone--if the success of certain types of hollywood-blockbusters is any indication, your average-joe American prefers heroic stories as well."
Ok, the idea of an evil campaign bores you. And I should play your style instead of mine because? My point was not that everyone should play evil, just the opposite. My point was that rules for character creation should not limit what type of morals a character should have. There is great potential for RP with a group of evil or mixed characters. It may not be your bag, that's cool. But the statement the article's author makes about not RPing if you don't wanna play a goody-goody is completely ignorant of the potential for RP.
Your next paragraph about "good at heart" vs. self-serving grossly misidentifies what it means to be self-serving. There is a difference between me doing everything in my power to better my own life and serve my interests than doing so at the cost of others. Me going to college to get a better paying job is completely self-serving. This is rational and explicitly not evil. Me knifing my boss in an alley to get his job is completely evil and I'm not sure it is self-serving as I would be on the run for the rest of my days and wouldn't get the job because of this. I don't believe you have to be "altruistic" to be moral or heroic.
"To cite a given example, even the thief that slays the dragon for the express purpose of gaining a share of the horde still qualifies as Heroic under this definition. Battling a dragon typically is no cake-walk--that thief has put himself in the mother-of-all-mortal-perils, knowing full-well that he may very well die for what he is doing, and that if he succeeds the town will be saved. That his underlying motivation is his greed only highlights the humanity and heroism of his deed. In fact, this leads very easily to the almost cliched situation where the victorious thief then tries downplay the enormity of what he has done, in the face of the adulation of his benefactees, and then grows to harbor a secret happiness and pride for having saved the day, while continuing to insist that he's nothing more than a greedy thief. While his baser intentions may normally be held in contempt, they are eclipsed by the magnitude of his more laudable self-sacrifice, and this is what will be remembered about him."
I disagree that there is any self-sacrifice whatsoever in this scenario. He wants great riches. Great riches are protected by a dragon. He gets together with a bunch of people who want to slay the dragon for various reasons knowing they'll bring him closer to his goal. The fanfare for their success is icing on the cake.
"Conan, for instance, is independent and strong-willed. He makes his own fortune, and from what I've seen of the movies (having not read any of the books) he's willing to uphold and defend the weak, or at least tolerates them, and respects strength."
Yes, Conan is independent and strong-willed. REH's Conan (not the movies) respected strength greatly. The only "weak" that he defended were women, and that was because he was hoping to bed them afterward. Yet his actions led to great good. The defeat of Xoltutan in "Hour of the Dragon" benifitted entire nations. But this is not the reason he killed him. He did so to regain his kingdom, a completely self-serving action.
For the record, I like people, but I take it on an individual basis. Just because you exist does not mean I should have to sacrifice for you. Nor would I ask you to sacrifice yourself for me. Each individual is a means to their own ends, not the means to others.
I think you're overstating the problem just a bit.
From my perspective, the rule isn't so much about "what makes a hero" as it is "what makes a good rpg hero." While I'm sure that you can find infinite examples of anti-social and self-serving heroes throughout both literature and history, the simple fact is that role-playing is a social activity, and as such must make some concessions to a social contract in order for everyone to enjoy the game.
Evil campaigns are a notable example, in that everyone involved should have agreed to play an evil character, and they have come up with some set of plausible reasons why they continue to work together. But if Cruella the Witch doesn't have at least some incentive (however minuscule) to set aside her own immediate needs in order to help Dirk Dastardly in his latest plot, then they really aren't forming a group at all. Thus Cruella is evincing at least some measure of that self-sacrificing nature embodied in Rule #3, even if it's only because she needs Dirk's help finishing her latest potion or because Dirk is holding her familiar hostage.
The whole point of the article is that a character should be designed with the fun of the entire group in mind, rather than one's own visceral enjoyment of loosing the shackles of moral society. If the greedy rogue can't be trusted under at least some circumstances, there's absolutely no reason to keep him around, and he becomes a liability to the party that they are forced to endure merely because he's a PC. Forcing the other players to forego their characters' common sense in order to accede to your need to play a money-grubbing untrustworthy scoundrel is the height of real-world selfishness, and is likely to lead to hard feelings.
And it's important to note that a character doesn't have to be completely self-effacing to still fit into the guidelines of rule #3. If the greedy rogue can be counted on in any serious crisis, even if it's only in his own best interest, it's still possible for him to be a useful member of the group. Conan is an excellent example of a self-serving but ultimately trustworthy hero, and Jayne Cobb (Firefly/Serenity) is another more contemporary example. You don't have to play the saintly stick-up-the-rear paladin in order to conform to rule #3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morat
However take something like the gangster genre, where the protagonists are generally out to sieze power from others. This guys are generally not good at heart, and are frequently totally the opposite, out for power above all else.
I beg to differ. The gangsters in question may have a unified goal of acquiring power above all else, but based on the movies I've seen, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on loyalty among the group. If Rocco is captured by the feds, can the rest of the group trust him not to rat them out? It's certainly in Rocco's best interest to sing like a canary, to reduce his own sentence and gain more opportunity to garner power. Can Rocco trust his friends to bust him out of the slammer at their earliest opportunity? It's certainly in their best interest to leave him there, so he doesn't get a cut of the loot and they don't risk their skins. Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of gangster lore, the gangsters in these situations would take decidedly self-sacrificing actions in these circumstances.
If you look at Rule #3 as a guideline and not a straight-jacket, it makes a lot of sense no matter what genre you're playing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonidas
To add to that, if at any time a random people can have the character's morals and eithics described and reliably identify the protagonists and antagonists, then either the GM failed or you did. Either way, your game is shit.
So because the author chooses to espouse a particular style of play that doesn't agree with your world view, he and everyone who holds the same view is a failure and all their efforts are utter garbage? Way to keep an open mind.
Personally, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of campaigns I've been involved in during my 15+ year gaming career would have at least a 50/50 chance of identifying the protagonists/antagonists from a simple description of their morals/ethics, and in most cases closer to 75-90%. So by your estimate, I'm an utter failure as a GM and a player? Based on that one solitary variable? Playing RPGs as an anti-hero is definitely a laudable play-style, but I hardly think that it's the only style worth exploring.
__________________
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me...
I think it depends on the group. If you have a group of players who roleplay together well and who have a good trust relationship, you can absolutely have a good time playing mixed alignments or all "evil" characters. My group had a blast playing a group of VIPER agents in a Champions campaign.
But if you are GM'ing to a new group, or to players whose style you aren't sure of, allowing "evil" or selfish characters can potentially lead to a train wreck. All it takes is a couple of players taking their characters way too seriously to turn an otherwise excellent opportunity for roleplaying into a total campaign shutdown.
I think it takes a certain level of maturity to roleplay in-party struggles without letting it get out of hand. You have to be willing to go with the drama, to not take the roleplay personal, and above all, you have to be willing to lose (because in a conflict of interest between two characters, something has to give).
I think that rule 3 makes for a good safety net for your campaign, but if your players have the right stuff, and everyone is up for it, rule 3 can certainly be dispensed with.
Incidentally I do tend to use rule 3 myself just because I like my PC heroes to be good guys (though not necessarily nice guys, which is an important distinction). Sure, it may not be "realistic", as other posters have pointed out. But I figure realism went out the window as soon as we start casting fireball spells or travelling in FTL spacecraft, so what's a little extra unrealism?
Allow a fellow RPG.net columnist to weigh in here.
First of all, very interesting column! It's a very promising start and I'll be eagerly awaiting the next one (you actually beat me to the punch on a topic I'd considered for my own column!).
At the risk of parroting others, I think Rule #3 is better titled as "The character must be good at heart or be ready to accept the consequences."
Obviously, if the GM wishes to run a campaign about good heroes, then a selfish PC with no redeeming qualities would be as fitting as a Japanese samurai in a campaign set in Norman England. The GM should outlaw the concept as a matter of course, since the concept is outside the parameters of his campaign.
If a player is allowed to play a selfish PC, then he should be ready to accept the consequences and those consequences should be real. "Well, he's a PC" should never be the justification as to why someone is allowed to stay in a group if his actions warrant expulsion. If they do, then he should be expelled.
That said, there are fun and legitmate campaign styles that lack heroes. Take Noir, for example. There are no heroes, only protagonists. These protagonists often have an Achilles' Heel that could threaten other PCs, but it's an established part of the genre. Everyone who plays in a Noir campaign should accept that. Similarly, Vampire: the Masquerade (I'm unfamiliar with the current Requiem) poses the same issue. Vampires (generally) aren't heroes, and they band together for mutual protection and to keep an eye on each other. Ironically, one of the accusations leveled against many V:TM campaigns was that the PCs forgot they were monsters and simply played as sunlight-sensitive superheroes.
Linear Mode
