A rant against so-called heroes

[Elennsar]

I'm going to answer straight out that I haven't played Planescape: Torment. So that I can't answer.

Do you count as heroic in either of these situations?

Let's see:

#1: You save the world from being destroyed by evil. You took no real risk and suffered no hardship in terms of "fighting", but you did suffer pyschological trauma.

That counts as suffering injury if it really matters.

If not, then no, you're not heroic.

#2: Same principle.

However, in neither case are you remotely as heroic as someone who would face the same thing but who is actually in peril of something other than his own pyschosis (which could potentially be dealt with).

So in terms of "are you a hero for risking life and limb?" the answer is an obvious no.

Are you a hero for being willing to sacrifice your peace of mind and forever bear a certain amount of pain for the Good of the World?

That actually merits a yes.

[Maxus]

Okay, I haven't been following this. Where did Elennsar get the idea that facing risk is what makes a hero a hero?

Admittedly, going through with something that had enormous potential for grievous personal harm is courageous, and that's a heroic trait. But it's hardly the only one.

Going to dictionary.com bring me to this:

b. (in the Homeric period) a warrior-chieftain of special strength, courage, or ability.

I'd also say that the classic save-the-X deed would qualify as heroic. And I'd agree that someone could be a total dick and go around killing people and then urinating on the bodies, could technically be called a hero. As long as you're strong enough and bold enough, I guess you fit the definition.

[norms29]

Am I the only one troubled by the fact that Elenssars definiton of heroism excludes the protagonists of all works of fiction ever?

What it excludes is any protagonist who can't fail to dodge/parry/block/duck, who can't get seriously injuried if they are hit, and who can't die if they are seriously injuried.

The fact that they DID survive doesn't mean it was inevitable for them in the world the author is writting, which is the important part.

do... do you understand that the author didn't roll any dice, at any point. the fact that a character in a single author work of fiction doesn't have X happen to them is, in fact, EXACTLY equivilent to the fact that X can't happen to them.

Conan could fail to defend against an attack. He could get seriously hurt (and has). He could die if seriously hurt enough (didn't manage to happen, but possible).

no, not possible. when Howard wrote the Conan stories he knew with 100% certainty that Conan would win. how is "Conan can die, but he never does" which you explicitly hold up as OK, any different from "The PCs can die, but they never do". Which you've been railing against like it killed your parents.

Making a game with any of the following, on the other hand, strips heroism (as something that you have in combat) away:

A 0% chance of being hit at any point.
A 0% chance of being seriously hurt if hit at any point. (as in, at no point will it happen)
A 0% chance of dying if seriously hurt.

You can be a wonderful guy and save lives and rebuild countries and so on and that's bloody awesome. But its not self sacrificing if there's no sacrifice.

maybe you should stop using the word "heroic", when you mean "self destructive"

[Elennsar]

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... entry/hero

#2: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.

do... do you understand that the author didn't roll any dice, at any point. the fact that a character in a single author work of fiction doesn't have X happen to them is, in fact, EXACTLY equivilent to the fact that X can't happen to them.

No, it isn't. Otherwise, anything that has happened could not have happened another way, which is rather silly.

no, not possible. when Howard wrote the Conan stories he knew with 100% certainty that Conan would win. how is "Conan can die, but he never does" which you explicitly hold up as OK, any different from "The PCs can die, but they never do". Which you've been railing against like it killed your parents.

Because it is "the PCs can't die and never do". It is not "the PCs are able to thwart death" - it is "the PCs cannot be slain."

Biggggg difference between "didn't happen" and "was never a possibility for the character to begin with".

maybe you should stop using the word "heroic", when you mean "self destructive"

Maybe you should look at the definition I'm using instead of solely using the "Big, strong, and badass" definition.

Also, Maxus, no offense, but:

As long as you're strong enough and bold enough, I guess you fit the definition.

By that, Darth Vader is a hero.

Now, while I can understand using it to refer to the Greek Uberbadasses with a straight face, that I'm not so sure on.

[norms29]

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... entry/hero

#2: A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.

"Courage or nobility"? that means you only need one, not both
doesn't it bother you that the definition you claim to be using includes all of the examples you've rejected. like the base jumpers (courage, no nobility) or all of the good deed at no risk (nobility, no courage)

do... do you understand that the author didn't roll any dice, at any point. the fact that a character in a single author work of fiction doesn't have X happen to them is, in fact, EXACTLY equivilent to the fact that X can't happen to them.

No, it isn't. Otherwise, anything that has happened could not have happened another way, which is rather silly.

ignoring the fact that some people believe that the realworld actually does work that way, do you beleive the alternative to be true? that an author doesn't have absolute control over what will or will not happen in their own book?, do you beleive that Conan could've died when Howard wanted him to live? do you believe Conan could live if howard wanted him dead?

no, not possible. when Howard wrote the Conan stories he knew with 100% certainty that Conan would win. how is "Conan can die, but he never does" which you explicitly hold up as OK, any different from "The PCs can die, but they never do". Which you've been railing against like it killed your parents.

Because it is "the PCs can't die and never do". It is not "the PCs are able to thwart death" - it is "the PCs cannot be slain."

Biggggg difference between "didn't happen" and "was never a possibility for the character to begin with".

you still haven't told us how that is different from Conan.

[Elennsar]

doesn't it bother you that the definition you claim to be using includes all of the examples you've rejected. like the base jumpers (courage, no nobility) or all of the good deed at no risk (nobility, no courage)

The definition I am personally using is that if it is neither courageous or noble it isn't heroic, and it isn't particularly heroic if it isn't both. The link is to the dictionary definition involving the same.

Getting a cat out of a tree is a nice thing to do, but its a nice thing to do in about the same sense holding a door for someone is a nice thing to do if you're Superman.

So doesn't it bother you that you're nitpicking nits off of nits to make a point?

do you beleive that Conan could've died when Howard wanted him to live? do you believe Conan could live if howard wanted him dead?

I believe that if what Howard was writting was a chronicle of real events, then it would be possible for Conan to die, because Howard gives every indication that if things worked out that way (and there's no reason to believe that would be completely impossible), Conan could die.

Howard having absolute control of the narrative has nothing to do with that.

you still haven't told us how that is different from Conan.

Because Conan CAN fail. Instead of having "Incapable of being killed, try someone else.", Conan actually has to struggle.

A PC that cannot be killed even on a 20 vs. a 1 has "cannot be killed, try someone else".

[JonSetanta]

do... do you understand that the author didn't roll any dice, at any point. the fact that a character in a single author work of fiction doesn't have X happen to them is, in fact, EXACTLY equivilent to the fact that X can't happen to them.

Not a guarantee.

I do this sometimes when a story ending has multiple paths.
I write out a chart of, say, 1-6 outcomes, roll twice, then split up characters accordingly to their fates.. or just lump everyone in with a "rocks fall, everybody dies!" if indeed such a thing occurs.
Doesn't mean it's the final end though..

[Lago PARANOIA]

I believe that if what Howard was writting was a chronicle of real events, then it would be possible for Conan to die, because Howard gives every indication that if things worked out that way (and there's no reason to believe that would be completely impossible), Conan could die.

Howard having absolute control of the narrative has nothing to do with that.

Isn't it awfully convenient then how all of these action-adventure heroes somehow magically survive all odds until the adventure is over?

For example, Harry Potter doesn't drown in the Goblet of Fire, Conan doesn't get shot by a poisoned arrow trap when raiding a temple, Superman doesn't die from having Kryptonite jammed in him by Kevin Spacey, Iron Man doesn't get crushed by Iron Monger, Goku doesn't get ganked by Freeza or any of the other dozens of fights he had, Samwise doesn't get ghettostabbed by the giant spider, etc. etc.

You'd think that there would be more movies where Luke gets killed in the Death Star by Stormtroopers before he even got to the princess. He must be really lucky.

I mean, I can understand if one or two of these heroes made it to the end of the adventure, but all of them? That's the biggest fucking coincidence I've ever heard in my life. What's your explanation for nearly every hero having enough adventure to fill a book or made a 90+ minute movie?

I mean, seriously, if the author not deciding the outcomes of these strings of adventure is what enables them to overcome these overwhelming odds, then what force was responsible for ensuring that Legolas didn't end up dead by some orc in the battle of Helm's Deep?

[JonSetanta]

Goku doesn't get ganked by Freeza or any of the other dozens of fights he had

....

Dude. He died in the first few episodes of DBZ.
He did some stuff, worked out, eat junk, whatever.
...Then came back with a wish later. It was a big deal, Krillin bawww'd and everything, but after that it just becomes... rote.

I can't vouch for the other references you made or the possibility of being on "ignore" to you, but I'll tell you this much; it doesn't matter if a hero dies.

No, really. Achilles ends up in the Underworld. Odysseus talks to him.
Dante's Inferno is one giant cameo (and perhaps Purgatorio is a more apt reference, since they're not exactly heroes in Hell... to most..)
Not major roles in a story per se, but there is hope for THEM at least.
They didn't dissolve in to nothing upon death.
They are OUT THERE, somewhere, doing their own thing or someone else's thing, eternally or not.


This comes to a common result of extended stories that continue In The Beyond.
Shit doesn't end when the body is six feet under, it ends when the hero says so.

Even if Conan dies the story's not over.
In fact, I think he did die at least once in the first movie, then showed up again in the sequel.

If all a viewer observes is the here and now, the corporeal, the material, then yeah the spirit or whatever is left doesn't count... but this is fantasy we're dealing with, which usually entails a creative solution for, well, everything.
Even death.

Edit: typos

[Lago PARANOIA]

Way to miss the entire fucking point there, sigma.

[RandomCasualty2]

Conan -could- fail to block an attack, but doesn't. Conan could get stabbed in the heart, but isn't.

Seriously? Because everytime you read the books, I think you'll find that the turn out the same way.

Seems like the possibility of him failing is all illusionism, unless you have the super magic edition where the story changes everytime you read it.

[norms29]

doesn't it bother you that the definition you claim to be using includes all of the examples you've rejected. like the base jumpers (courage, no nobility) or all of the good deed at no risk (nobility, no courage)

The definition I am personally using is that if it is neither courageous or noble it isn't heroic, and it isn't particularly heroic if it isn't both. The link is to the dictionary definition involving the same.

Getting a cat out of a tree is a nice thing to do, but its a nice thing to do in about the same sense holding a door for someone is a nice thing to do if you're Superman.

So doesn't it bother you that you're nitpicking nits off of nits to make a point?

the fact that it's one word doesn't make it a nit. especially when that one word completely changes the meaning of the sentence. YOU QUOTED a definition, which not only failed to support your point, but actually completely contradicted everything you've said on the subject up to that point, which indicated that you were either subtly attempting to shift your position, which is perfectly acceptable if you ADMIT YOUR DOING IT. or you're deliberatly trying to confuse the issue to screw with people.

do you beleive that Conan could've died when Howard wanted him to live? do you believe Conan could live if howard wanted him dead?

I believe that if what Howard was writting was a chronicle of real events, then it would be possible for Conan to die

but it wasn't.

, because Howard gives every indication that if things worked out that way (and there's no reason to believe that would be completely impossible), Conan could die.

he gave every indication it could happen, BUT IT NEVER DID! why should games be held to a different standard

Howard having absolute control of the narrative has nothing to do with that.

except that for the fact there was never any chance of Conan being killed, because Howard didn't want it to happen

you still haven't told us how that is different from Conan.

Because Conan CAN fail. Instead of having "Incapable of being killed, try someone else.", Conan actually has to struggle.

What is your basis for believiing this? how many times has Cona been killed? what possible reason do we have to beleive Conan wasn't imortal and unkillable, except for the lies told to us by the narrator

A PC that cannot be killed even on a 20 vs. a 1 has "cannot be killed, try someone else".

just like Conan.


BONUS QUESTION: if I play a game where character's never really die and then writeup my campaign logs as a genre story (making no reference to things out of character), then, for all the reader sees, my protagionist is "in danger" by all your criteria (just like Conan). why is the protagionist "threatened" in post campaign fanfic, but not the original campaign?

Because frankly, I could actually sympathise with your desire for the PCs to actually be at risk; but that's because I think that I can't, as a player and a character, win if I can't lose. my ideal game is one where my character inhabits a complete fictional world where he can make any choice he could if it were real (and that includes losing and dying), rather then steping through some prewritten plot. I was also on your side in 40k thread.

What I can't tolerate is your aggressive stupidity and factual inaccuracy. it's a personal tick with me, that when someone argues in favor of positions I support with an argument that is invalid or counter factual, It pisses me off.

[Tsuzua]

What I think (I could be horribly wrong) is that having PCs planned to win all time falls under Boring Invincible Hero to Elennsar. If the PCs can't "lose" a fight unless the DM goes "You wake up in the dungeon after being drugged," it can make fights boring since the outcome is more or less predetermined. This mixes with the traditional way for PCs to lose in a RPG is to die. The real issue isn't that PCs can't die, it's that they can't lose.

Fictional heroes lose all the god damn time. Every time Bond is captured that was him losing. The end of "Empire Strikes Back" was a loss to Team Rebel. The BBEG escaping with the McGuffin so he can try to summon Cthulhu is a loss. You can brownbeat and railroad PCs into a loss but that's just lame. They should lose on their own. However as FrankTrollman points out, you'll have to make it easy for characters (both PC and NPC) to run away or end up in Joker Prison if you do this. Though dying should sometimes be the result of losing such as in the huge epic fight at the end of the campaign, it should not be the only one.

[Judging__Eagle]

Well, the notice-react-resolve-conclude system is meant to be a very free-form system.

So, you don't have stuff like hit points, or damage, or even large differences in weapons.

Instead you have people describe their characters, and then literally, any situation can be dangerous. A pack of goblins could beat your unconsious, or murdering them all in their sleep is just as likely as you getting your soul eaten or heat-shotting a balor. So, players would say what they're attempting before they roll, then describe what happens based on the result.

[Parthenon]

Why don't we try something more destructive than just asking the same questions over and over and sidestepping Elennsar's train of thought. Its obvious he's thinking in a different direction. Oh, wait, I meant constructive.

Why don't we make his Artorius, but properly.

Here would be the basic ideas behind it. This whole post is one chain of thought so could go anywhere.

The RPG is set in Britain around 400AD. Roman rule is breaking down, but in a heroic way. The barbarbarian invaders are destroying villages, eating babies and destroying hope in their belief that their teutonic blood is better and should be worshipped. Yes, the invaders are actually Nazis, and as such it is entirely acceptable that they should be killed on sight.
(Diplomacy is impossible because they don't believe you are worthy of talking to them. Hell, you don't even know each others language, and keeping one of them alive long enough to learn is impossible)

There is one last, bright hope for humanity. The Dux Artorius and his last Legion is fighting to save the non-Aryans, and is doing heroic acts of battle to save the day.

The PCs are cohorts of the Dux. Combat is quite lethal. It is quite likely for a PC to die within a battle. The Charge of the Light Brigade is an acceptable and even encouraged military tactic. After all, if heroism needs possible risk, then definite death is more heroic. Suicide bombers are indeed the most heroic people in the world.

This means that the players will be changing characters a lot of the time. Hmmm... we could have a pool of characters and swap them around, and the main focus of the game will be the campaign, not the party. That could possibly work, but one PC could be played by many players over different sessions. The nearest thing I can think of would be Fire Emblem, but with a different player for each PC. If there is a TPK then the focus of the story goes to a different squad. If the Dux dies then another Dux is put forward and the PCs continue to be cohorts.

All characters should take 3-5 hits to die, so a Wound system might be best. Wounds should also give penalties, since a wounded character who continues fighting when they could retreat and go to the medics is more heroic because it is more dangerous.

No idea of normal combats, but chance of death within one encounter should be about 10-15%. As in, whether a normal combat should be between your company and 1,000 screaming Nazi barbarbarians, or with the PCs and a couple of red-shirts against 5-10 Nazi baby-eaters.

Any other ideas? Could this game work? What do you guys think? How often should the PCs see the Dux? Should the Dux get into combat? Is there a way to stop the invasion?

---

As a side thought, I can't be bothered to go through the Dungeonomicon and so on to see if Frank and K have come up with a useful combat minigame that makes combat interesting and proactive and have choices within it. Is there one, because otherwise the only thing I've seen is the notice-react-resolve-conclude, which doesn't work well with something like D&D.

[Elennsar]

As for Conan, Lago:

The point is, Howard is not writting an invulnerable character.

The fact that I haven't died yet doesn't mean it was impossible for me to die before now, it means I didn't die.

Having a PC that would fight off anything threatening to kill him on a 1 (assuming d20 system) is incapable of being killed.

the fact that it's one word doesn't make it a nit. especially when that one word completely changes the meaning of the sentence. YOU QUOTED a definition, which not only failed to support your point, but actually completely contradicted everything you've said on the subject up to that point, which indicated that you were either subtly attempting to shift your position, which is perfectly acceptable if you ADMIT YOUR DOING IT. or you're deliberatly trying to confuse the issue to screw with people.

No, what I'm pointing out that being noble is a part of the definition, and the part I personally emphasis when describing something as heroic. Simply being a big damn badass is not heroic.

but it wasn't.

As far as the character is concerned, it is. In the "reality" Howard is writing of, it is.

he gave every indication it could happen, BUT IT NEVER DID! why should games be held to a different standard

Because there's a huge difference between "on a given roll, Conan made it." and "on every goddamn roll, Conan made it." You -could- kill Conan and -should- be able to kill Conan if you put him in one of the fights where he feared for his life - he might well triumph, but it should not simply be "Okay, we'll deplete d% of your hit points."

just like Conan.

No. Unlike Conan. Conan can be killed. A PC with that has nothing that can ever kill them.

why is the protagionist "threatened" in post campaign fanfic, but not the original campaign?

The protagonist isn't threatened unless something can happen that can kill them.

If you cut off Conan's head, he dies. Which means if someone swings at Conan's head, he had better block it.

Losing 2d8+stuff hit points, on the other hand, is not threatening until you're very low on hit points.

Though dying should sometimes be the result of losing such as in the huge epic fight at the end of the campaign, it should not be the only one.

BIH is part of it - last full measure of devotion or "this is dangerous" is another part. It is ludicrous if Han has to deliberately steer into an asteroid for traveling through asteroids to be dangerous.

Well, the notice-react-resolve-conclude system is meant to be a very free-form system.

Fair enough. I do like the idea of have that as "every encounter involves these phases" sort of things, though - because part of what keeps you alive in a dangerous thing is not getting to the position of finding out whether or not your helmet is good enough protection against their axe.

Any other ideas? Could this game work? What do you guys think? How often should the PCs see the Dux? Should the Dux get into combat? Is there a way to stop the invasion?

Congradulations on entirely missing what I want to create. You win the parody award and lose the "will ever be interested in your help" award.

[RandomCasualty2]

The protagonist isn't threatened unless something can happen that can kill them.

If you cut off Conan's head, he dies. Which means if someone swings at Conan's head, he had better block it.

Losing 2d8+stuff hit points, on the other hand, is not threatening until you're very low on hit points.

Hit point damage to a D&D character may kill him. A swing at Conan's head never kills him. Conan is protected by plot armor and thus can't die. The risk is all illusionary.

And RPGs can have some kind of illusionism element too. It's just that for whatever reason you think that author fiat is a better method of illusionism than game rules.

[Elennsar]

Because game rules say "Under no circumstances will this happen short of the GM being a dick." when they make characters invulnerable.

Conan isn't protected by that.

Saying that because he's never killed that he's unkillable is like saying someone who died of heart disease was incapable of dying of cancer.

[RandomCasualty2]

Because game rules say "Under no circumstances will this happen short of the GM being a dick." when they make characters invulnerable.

Conan isn't protected by that.

Conan is protected by something stronger. Namely author fiat.

There is no chance he dies because the author isn't rolling dice or running simulations, he decides on the story and he makes that happen.

So to say that Conan is somehow at more risk than a D&D character is absurd. The D&D character could roll a string of natural 1s and even a goblin could get klucky rolling tons of natural 20s. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Conan is simply not going to die at all, unless the author wants him to die. Probability doesn't determine the story, player input doesn't determine the story, it's just author fiat. The entire thing. There's no such thing as what might have happened in a book, because there is only one outcome, and it happens 100% of the time. For you to have probabilities of different outcomes, you need random elements or variable inputs. Books have none of those.

[norms29]

Because game rules say "Under no circumstances will this happen short of the GM being a dick." when they make characters invulnerable.

Conan isn't protected by that.

Saying that because he's never killed that he's unkillable is like saying someone who died of heart disease was incapable of dying of cancer.

The fact that I haven't died yet doesn't mean it was impossible for me to die before now, it means I didn't die

your "rebuttals" to the Conan examples are not only wrong, they could only appear right if you have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. Do you? or are you deliberatly spouting gibberish?

CONAN NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, HE IS FICTIONAL, AND CAN'T DIE UNLESS THE AUTHOR SAYS SO. TELL ME HOW BEING PROTECTED BY AUTHOR FIAT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM BEING PROTECTED BY DM FIAT.

[Maj]

If you want to play a game where you're battling against competent opposition, you should risk losing.

What does losing mean to you? Does it mean the characters end? Does it mean they fail their mission?

Because I have no problem playing in a roleplaying game where Bad Stuff™ happens - my character gets wounded, kidnapped, robbed, had her spirit disconnect from her body for a few months, shot, stabbed, raped (the DM asked me about this one first), lost loved ones, blackmailed, etc, etc.

But I do have a problem when the story ends because she dies permanently at random. That sucks.

Conan -could- fail to block an attack, but doesn't. Conan could get stabbed in the heart, but isn't.

But Conan doesn't know that he's a character in a book with an author who just makes sure he doesn't get stabbed in the heart. Likewise, the characters don't know that they're part of a roleplaying game where the ultimate storyteller might do something to keep the story from ending because the dice rolled badly.

Personally, I think herosim should generally involve an element of *risk*. But risk doesn't have to be risk of death. It can be risking the lives of one's family, risking one's chance at happiness, risking pain and suffering, risking the loss of possessions, or risking humiliation and dishonor.

QFT.

I'm a big fan of heroes who come out different on the other side. I really don't like stories where the hero is untouchable and through all the adventures stays exactly the same. Across the course of a game (not a single session, necessarily), enough stuff should happen to make the characters evolve - both ability-wise and personality-wise. It's because I like to see evolution that I don't like the characters to die - how are they supposed to make the change if the turnover rate is high? Why would a player invest anything into actual personality if that character means nothing in the long run?

If the only thing a character risks is death, I don't want to play. It's not real enough. I see the threads about the laws of physics of a fantasy world and I shrug - for me, what makes or breaks the world are the characters in it, not how gravity works. I couldn't care less what the DM tells me about how gravity functions, but I absolutely do care about participating in a world that can interact with my character - affect and be affected by her. Having death be the only threat would be ignoring most of my character - her family, friends, personal history, job, phobias, likes, whatever. It's too shallow.

No it isn't. Does it cause him any hurt, discomfort, or disturb his life style in any way? NO!

That's not a sacrifice.

You asked if it was generous. It is.

I went and looked up generous and didn't find sacrifice in the definition.

I went and looked up sacrifice and there seems to be a poorly explained sense of loss that's supposed to accompany giving something up, so I'd probably say giving up millions isn't a sacrifice for Mr. Gates, but giving up his time to go help people is.

---

Incidentally, for those interested in random trivia, apparently, one of the definitions of sacrifice over at merriam-webster.com is to kill (an animal) as part of a scientific experiment. Who knew?

---

However, in neither case are you remotely as heroic as someone who would face the same thing but who is actually in peril of something other than his own pyschosis (which could potentially be dealt with).

Dude. Dying isn't heroic.

Let me repeat that because you clearly haven't grasped this.

Dying is not heroic.

The heroic part comes in when you have considered the motivation for the character's actions. And that means that being heroic is first and foremost an aspect of personality and character, not physical action. This means that dead people can have died under heroic circumstances, but it also means that a hero who suffers hurt to himself in the form of drama (rather than a broken leg) is still heroic.

You seem to be wanting to define heroism as self-sacrifice. And you seem to be defining self-sacrifice as a literal sacrifice of the self. And you seem to define self as "body." But a person is way more than just their body. A person is defined by their personality. Epitaphs don't say things like "Here lies Deirdre Winters. She had two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, a nose, and a mouth." Epitaphs talk about the character of a person - the things you can't see: "Here lies Deirdre Winters. She dedicated her life to making sure people who never even knew her were safe and happy." A hero who sacrifices their sanity loses just as much of their self as a hero who has died. The only difference is that the dead hero's story is over. The insane hero's story may or may not be over.

Because Conan CAN fail.

This is the second discussion where you conflate the characters with the people who play them. The players may know they're not going to die. But the characters don't. And that's no different than in a book where the author knows the character won't die, but the character doesn't.

[Elennsar]

There's no such thing as what might have happened in a book, because there is only one outcome, and it happens 100% of the time.

And there are multiple -possible- outcomes.

CONAN NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED, HE IS FICTIONAL, AND CAN'T DIE UNLESS THE AUTHOR SAYS SO. TELL ME HOW BEING PROTECTED BY AUTHOR FIAT IS ANY DIFFERENT FROM BEING PROTECTED BY DM FIAT.

Because the character's reality is not "you are immortal" for Conan and IS that when the DM says that he'll never kill the character.

But I do have a problem when the story ends because she dies permanently at random. That sucks.

And it sucks even worse (says me) when the character cannot die permamently except by jabbing scissors through their eyes. On purpose.

But Conan doesn't know that he's a character in a book with an author who just makes sure he doesn't get stabbed in the heart. Likewise, the characters don't know that they're part of a roleplaying game where the ultimate storyteller might do something to keep the story from ending because the dice rolled badly.

No, but they should know whether or not their life depends on whether they block a given attack or whether they can ignore it.

Having death be the only threat would be ignoring most of my character - her family, friends, personal history, job, phobias, likes, whatever. It's too shallow.

And again, eliminating death means that there is nothing whatsoever that the character cannot recover from. No full measure of devotion, no chance that failing is the end - just all sorts of more or less recoverable conditions.

I went and looked up sacrifice and there seems to be a poorly explained sense of loss that's supposed to accompany giving something up, so I'd probably say giving up millions isn't a sacrifice for Mr. Gates, but giving up his time to go help people is.

And once again the concept of sacrifice is mocked here. Once again it instead of being something that costs something that hurts, it becomes any cost.

By that definition, me deciding to park an extra block away from a building is a sacrifice (so that other people can get the closer parking spaces).

That's crazy.

Incidentally, for those interested in random trivia, apparently, one of the definitions of sacrifice over at merriam-webster.com is to kill (an animal) as part of a scientific experiment. Who knew?

Now that's weird.

Dude. Dying isn't heroic.

Let me repeat that because you clearly haven't grasped this.

Dying is not heroic.

Being willing to die to save others, stand true to your principles, or otherwise do something good -is- heroic. And that's my position, not that dying = heroic in and of itself.

Otherwise, suicide (regular 'ol sleeping pill overdose) is heroic.

A hero who sacrifices their sanity loses just as much of their self as a hero who has died. The only difference is that the dead hero's story is over. The insane hero's story may or may not be over.

No "last full measure of devotion" heroism when there's no "last full measure" given. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

But the characters don't. And that's no different than in a book where the author knows the character won't die, but the character doesn't.

It is very different when the rules say that I can stand there and be shot at all day by Imperial Stormtroopers because we all know that they can't hit the broadside of a battlecruiser. That means that any thought that I'm at risk is not "it could happen, but it could also not happen" - its more impossible to die at the hands of IS than it is at the hands of rats.

In brief, you don't want any story to ever end before you want it to end. Ever. Nevermind that something is dangerous and risky and people can get -killed- ...your special PC has to be protected from the dragon doing so even though every other person to fight the dragon before and everyone that would come after you is vulnerable to that, your PC has to have the story continue.

Why not just play someone who isn't in a situation that can get them killed in the first place?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iT0Hmu5bXY

If my PC in something like that is as invulnerable as the actors, I'm going to have a very hard time taking it seriously as meritous and awesome.

And if I can't do meritous and awesome things in a rpg, then I'm going to play something else.

[RandomCasualty2]

And there are multiple -possible- outcomes.

No there aren't. The idea that a book could turn out differently than what you read is pure illusionism.

Find me a Conan book with multiple outcomes. Seriously. I want to read the variant passage where Conan dies. Show me the unreleased footage of Conan the Barbarian where Conan gets killed in the gladiatorial pits.

I want to fucking see it.

If you can't show me any other outcome than what actually happened in the books, then you're full of shit on this one.

Because the character's reality is not "you are immortal" for Conan and IS that when the DM says that he'll never kill the character.

And you think a D&D character is immortal? You think there aren't different possible outcomes when you're rolling dice to get those outcomes?

I think I'm with Frank in that I should just ignore you, because you simply don't accept even the most basic of concepts and seem to just argue for the sake of arguing. Then when you get pinned down you say some bullshit like "But I don't really know what I want."

Elennsar, have you ever admitted you were wrong anywhere?

It seems like all you do is spam tons of posts, give no ground whatsoever even to the extent that you ignore mathematical fact and common sense, and then call it a victory when people get sick of beating their heads against the wall and stop arguing with you.

[Elennsar]

Right, because the fact that it didn't happen means that it was incapable of happening. That makes no logical sense.

And you think a D&D character is immortal? You think there aren't different possible outcomes when you're rolling dice to get those outcomes?

When you make it virtually impossible for them to fail seriously, and then make it even more impossible to stay dead (death: the revolving door is just paying diamonds every so often for staying alive) - for all intents and purposes, a D&D character will not be dead and gone to wherever anything short of the things specifically noted as screwing with resurrection magic as a pretty safe given.

Then when you get pinned down you say some bullshit like "But I don't really know what I want."

Because you want an exact description that I haven't worked out and the idea of actually helping work out one is so far inconcievable that it would be easier to design the project with the help of moderately well behaved monkeys than your nonassistance.

I know some of what I want. I don't know if I want "60% chance of hitting someone with a normal attack assuming equal skill" and asking for that is not helping in any way, shape, or form.

Elennsar, have you ever admitted you were wrong anywhere?

Yes. Have you ever had someone think that your idea of "assistance" is designed to avoid actually offering any aid and is instead designed to make the other person want you to stay away because you're just being frustrating without offering anything productive?

[Maj]

And it sucks even worse (says me) when the character cannot die permamently except by jabbing scissors through their eyes. On purpose.

You're metagaming. Of course that's not fun.

If Adara Snowden is ever in a position where she can stare a man with a gun directly in the face and ignore the fact that he's about to shoot her because she knows she will survive if he does, I'm metagaming. Because Adara doesn't know there's a DM. She doesn't know she's some stats on paper. She's just a chef who's about to get carjacked and the man wants her keys.

If I ever make my character ignore the fact that a man is pointing a gun at her, it's either because my character doesn't know what a gun is, or I'm metagaming. In which case, I'm not roleplaying my character at all because I'm not staying true to what she would do.

That's so not fun that it's not even included in the idea of what a roleplaying game is.

No, but they should know whether or not their life depends on whether they block a given attack or whether they can ignore it.

What makes you think they don't know? Again, you're metagaming. Because the player might know that the DM is "on their side" gives no license for the character to act retarded in the game. When you read a book - a story with a fixed plot - your heart races and you feel for the characters. That's no different from in-game. Unless you actually play in a game where you don't get adrenaline rushes from the action. Which is lame.

And again, eliminating death means that there is nothing whatsoever that the character cannot recover from.

You are seriously suffering from a lack of creative story-telling.

And once again the concept of sacrifice is mocked here. Once again it instead of being something that costs something that hurts, it becomes any cost.

Don't ever mock the idea that giving up your time is not a sacrifice. Time is the most valuable currency a person has to spend, and unlike anything else, you never get it back. Giving up your time to help people is sacrifice, and downplaying it in any way, shape, or form is just cruel.

By that definition, me deciding to park an extra block away from a building is a sacrifice (so that other people can get the closer parking spaces).

That's crazy.

I refuse to accept your crazy idea that sacrifice is defined by Extreme Hurt™. There are many ways that a person can sacrifice, and giving up their mortal flesh isn't the only way.

Being willing to die to save others, stand true to your principles, or otherwise do something good -is- heroic. And that's my position, not that dying = heroic in and of itself.

Being willing to die and actually dying are two completely different things. Do you understand that?

A dead hero can't be heroic anymore. They are an epitaph.

If you get your jollies by playing a character who dies in the name of <insert cause here>, then really, you're a death scene junkie, and that's OK. But do not use your desire to repeatedly roleplay death scenes as a justification that our desire to roleplay someone who's willing to die - but stays alive - isn't heroic.

No "last full measure of devotion" heroism when there's no "last full measure" given. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

Wow. You just completely obviated my last character's existence. In trying to save the world, she lost her soulmate and went crazy as a result - and never recovered. But because she lived on in an insane asylum, incapable of even responding to her own name, she didn't actually give her last full measure of devotion. Screw you.

In brief, you don't want any story to ever end before you want it to end. Ever.

Of course not. Who does?

If I read half of The Scarlet Pimpernel and then put it down, never to keep going, that would suck. Why would I want to invest time into making a character only to have her trip on a spike, stab herself, and die halfway through the plot?

If that were the case, I'd never roleplay. Really. I invest a lot of time into my characters, and it sucks to waste your time. Why would I ever create personalities and backgrounds and put forth the effort of living vicariously through fiction if all my effort is going to be wasted by premature eradication?

Nevermind that something is dangerous and risky and people can get -killed- ...your special PC has to be protected from the dragon doing so even though every other person to fight the dragon before and everyone that would come after you is vulnerable to that, your PC has to have the story continue.

What sort of games do you imagine us having?! Do you think that our PCs can blithely and retardedly walk up to a dragon and kill it because the DM won't let us die? That's not heroic. That's not even an awesome story. It's lame.

Killing a dragon is a Big Deal&#8482;! It's dangerous! It's something that no one has succeeded at before! And if we don't succeed, then the dreams of every person in the world will make their brains bleed out through their ears and civilization as we know it will be extinguished! Dying is clearly the easier option here.