A rant against so-called heroes

[Elennsar]

Great. You can argue that later, once I've said something to the contrary using your answer to the question.

For now I just want true or false for that statement.

"If you are watching Die Hard, he survives."

Moving on to the other posts - but that's the answer.

In the same way that you are assuming it could.

It is slightly easier to argue that events could be slightly different causing different things to happen than that it is inevitable that everything would add up a certain way.

Am I putting the wrong words in your mouth Elennsar? The second is slightly interpreting your position since I'm not entirely sure what you believe. If I'm wrong, please give a short statement describing your position.

Alright, first assumption that has to be understood to make my position clear.

The rules of a rpg indicate the possible outcomes that can happen in that rpg - there is no way an outcome that requires rolling a 7 on 1d6 can ever occur.

So, anyway, my position:

A character who percieves an action as extremely dangerous is not heroic for facing that simply because they percieve it such - except in the sense of fighting a phobia or the like - but in terms of combat bravery, taking on a mouse you believe to be a lion or a lion you believe to be a mouse are equally nonbrave.

This is true in rpgs or fiction (novels or movies) - presumably, fiction is presenting one possible outcome in a situation, but the outcome that "Aragorn takes the Ring." is not literally impossible within the universe of the characters.

If, on the other hand, an action within the universe of the characters is risky, it is brave - even if we, the readers, know that it doesn't kill Han, Han has ever reason to think it could. And a game needs to, assuming Han is not just plain mistaken, reflect that - it needs to be possible if certain things occur that can be created in the game, for it to cause what he fears.

This has no real difference to an RPG, where the DM and players know that this is the beginning or middle of a campaign, so there is quite a long way to go, and since everyone wants to get to the end the actual danger is very low. However, in the theoretical situation the characters would be aware of a risk of death and so be able to be heroic.

The main thing is - if it is completely impossible for there to be any character death, the characters don't have "We could die" to be afraid of.

They might think they do, but they don't. Depending on the mechanics, that could either be effectively irrelevant (yes, if you hit Aragorn in the head, he's in trouble - but he manages to parry or dodge every attack.) - but the mechanics still need to reflect the character's actions and perils - if he doesn't dodge or parry and is hit in the head, then he is in trouble - making that not matter either because heroes can tough it out winds up with "no reason to think he's in danger".

El, you may think it's boring for Superman to be called a hero just because the fire won't hurt him, but tell that to the person he saved.

The problem is - while he did a good deed - he was no more at risk than if I picked up your car keys after you dropped them.

So while Superman may get "good Boy Scout/Samartinian/Nice Guy" kudos, no kudos for bravery.

Just noting.

My theory on what it takes to be really and truly a hero has both - if you're not brave, being noble isn't quite as meaningful (though it doesn't necessarily take physical courage to meet "brave" requirements) - if you're merely brave, you're certainly not quite enough, though it may still be impressive.

Strictly in terms of rpgs, for a moment:

I play rpgs because I want to do someone who can (even if on a small scale) do cool and awesome things.

If you make it so my character cannot be killed by mere orcs (the outcome cannot be generated within the system), you just robbed me of a chance to do something cool and awesome - because slaughtering people who are helpless to resist isn't cool and awesome, and that's what you just made my character be doing when that happens.

Making it so that I can, if I can prevent the outcome from being generated, kill twenty orcs single-handedly is not bad - but the orcs have to have a chance to generate it for me preventing it to be a meaningful statement.

As stated, Sword of the Samurai is awesome here. D&D, by contrast, is not.

[Leress]

The problem is - while he did a good deed - he was no more at risk than if I picked up your car keys after you dropped them.

So while Superman may get "good Boy Scout/Samartinian/Nice Guy" kudos, no kudos for bravery.

He is still a hero by definition.

Just noting.

My theory on what it takes to be really and truly a hero has both - if you're not brave, being noble isn't quite as meaningful (though it doesn't necessarily take physical courage to meet "brave" requirements) - if you're merely brave, you're certainly not quite enough, though it may still be impressive.

By your definition Superman would still be a hero.

[Elennsar]

Not unless he is both brave and noble, and there is no bravery on his part in doing something where he has nothing to fear.

Simply being brave is awesome and I'm prepared, in terms of the English language, to refer to him as a hero. Same with being noble.

What I'm not prepared to do is call him a hero in the sense that this guy http://www.civilwarhome.com/shawbio.htm was a hero unless he (Superman) is doing something equivalant.

[Leress]

Not unless he is both brave and noble, and there is no bravery on his part in doing something where he has nothing to fear.

Simply being brave is awesome and I'm prepared, in terms of the English language, to refer to him as a hero. Same with being noble.

He is brave for going into a dangerous situation (since the person being save can still die), he is noble because he saved someone's life.

What I'm not prepared to do is call him a hero in the sense that this guy http://www.civilwarhome.com/shawbio.htm was a hero unless he (Superman) is doing something equivalant.

Superman has done more than that. He has saved the world multiple times. The person you linked to is a hero too. Brave for figthing and noble for standing up for his principles

[name_here]

No, even if he needs risktaking to be a hero he still qualifies.

If batman picks up car keys, that doesn't make him a non-hero, and if superman defeats bank robbers that also doesn't make him a non-hero.

Batman is a hero because he's willing to fight the Joker, Superman is a hero because he's willing to fight Doomsday. The fact that most of his foes are weaker than Doomsday and not capable of killing Superman doesn't mean he isn't a hero and hides behind his invunerablity. He does risk death to protect people when Doomsday breaks free, and dies. If he failed, in fact, his death would be permanent, only the lack of choking clouds of debris let him come back, and he did have the option of ditching earth and going elsewhere.

[Elennsar]

Not dangerous for him - no kudos for Superman for going into something dangerous unless he is in danger. The other person being in danger doesn't make Superman brave for rescuing them.

The fact that most of his foes are weaker than Doomsday and not capable of killing Superman doesn't mean he isn't a hero and hides behind his invunerablity.

Thusly most of his foes are not life threatening challenges, or even possibly serious injury challenges - no kudos for facing risks like a biped when there aren't any risks.

[Leress]

So El, if Superman saved you from a burning building you wouldn't call him a hero?

[Elennsar]

There are several flattering and thankful words I would use - hero isn't one of them, no.

[Leress]

There are several flattering and thankful words I would use - hero isn't one of them, no.

So no matter what Superman does, even saving the world from Lex or some other guy he could just punch in the face lightly and disable, would make him a hero?

[name_here]

Thusly most of his foes are not life threatening challenges, or even possibly serious injury challenges - no kudos for facing risks like a biped when there aren't any risks.

Thusly you completely miss the entire point of the post.

He does risk death to protect people when Doomsday breaks free, and dies. If he failed, in fact, his death would be permanent, only the lack of choking clouds of debris let him come back, and he did have the option of ditching earth and going elsewhere

[Elennsar]

So no matter what Superman does, even saving the world from Lex or some other guy he could just punch in the face lightly and disable, would make him a hero?

In the sense Shaw was? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be thankful, but we should be thankful for a lot of people - librarians, for instance (and speaking as a booklover, I don't mean that lightly).

Thusly you completely miss the entire point of the post.

When he is facing something that can kill him, he does have kudos for bravery at that time, but not for the multitude of other occasions.

[Leress]

In the sense Shaw was? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be thankful, but we should be thankful for a lot of people - librarians, for instance (and speaking as a booklover, I don't mean that lightly).

What sense are you talking about? Shaw was a hero and Superman was a hero. What you die with his allies? They both did that. Going against impossible odds? They both did that.

[Elennsar]

So no matter what Superman does, even saving the world from Lex or some other guy he could just punch in the face lightly and disable, would make him a hero?

Saving the world from Lex or some other guy like that, if he (Superman) is not at risk of dying or being seriously hurt (physically or otherwise), is not brave in the sense Shaw displayed bravery - either in fighting or fighting with the 54th in particular.

If he (Superman) is taking the same kind of genuine risk (even if it takes something that would be instant death for Shaw to be equivalantly risky for Superman), then he is doing the same kind of thing - but if he isn't, the "fate of the world is at stake!" doesn't make it braver.

[Parthenon]

How about this?

Superman is a hero all the time, because he is willing to risk the permanent mental anguish of loss of Lois, Jimmy et al for being killed, taken hostage or mind controlled in order to rescue lives and live up to his principles.

Or is he a dick for risking their lives? Not sure which.

---

How about the idea that a hero is a role model for good, courageous or noble acts? Firemen are heroes for saving lives. That bicycle rider who had cancer or whatever is a hero for showing that people can triumph through adversity. In most stories Conan isn't a hero because he just breaks in and robs people. Other people can be heroes by showing that change can be done by peaceful, non-risky methods.

In this idea of a hero, risk isn't necessary. Of course, it does mean that most RPG characters aren't heroes.

[Elennsar]

Its a pretty good definition. Ideally, one is courageous -and- noble there, but ideally a lot of things are true, so that's not the point.

As for the Big S: Of course he's a dick. The Superdickery website has proof!

[Tshern]

Actually, Superman is a hero under just about every defintion i've seen used or brought up in the thread, he just doesn't show his adherence to Elennsar's very often.

Not as much of a hero as he is a dick.

[name_here]

Only on the covers for the most part. It sells comic books now to have a dramatic cover, it sells them in the future to have the guy on the pages be boy scout like, it really sells them to have a purple gorilla on the cover.

Guess what that means.

I'm not kidding about the purple gorillas.

[RandomCasualty2]

"If you are watching Die Hard, he survives."

Ok, great.

So you agree that if you're watching Die Hard that McClane survives. Okay good. So lets analyze that for a moment with the original premise and conclusion.

Premise (you said this was true): If you are watching Die Hard, McClane survives.

Conclusion (you said this was false): If McClane does not survive, you are not watching Die Hard.

So you agreed to the premise, but dismissed the conclusion as being false.

Unfortunately, this stance totally contradicts basic logic, since this is a P implies Q scenario, and basic logic states that we can conclude that, Not Q implies Not P is also true. And that's for any P or Q. So if you agree that the premise is true (whcih you did), logically the conclusion must also be true.

And once we have that, we can also distinctly say through the original conclusion that if McClane dies, then you are not watching Die Hard.

In other words, McClane's death in Die Hard can't happen.

Do you follow that line of reasoning?

[NineInchNall]

This has become my favoritest thread ever. The simple repetition of the Die Hard scenario had me giggling in my chair at work.

Thank you.

[Elennsar]

There's a difference between "In the Die Hard movie, it does not happen." and "in the world where the movie is set, it cannot happen to begin with."

This has become my favoritest thread ever. The simple repetition of the Die Hard scenario had me giggling in my chair at work.

Thank you.

Glad something good has come out of it. : )

[RandomCasualty2]

There's a difference between "In the Die Hard movie, it does not happen." and "in the world where the movie is set, it cannot happen to begin with."

I have no idea what "the world where the movie is set" actually is. If you're talking about that there could one day be a Die Hard sequel called "Die not so hard" where McClane gets killed, then that's a possibility for another movie set in the same world, but that has little relevance to whether he was in danger in the first Die Hard movie.

But I can say that John McClane in Die Hard was not at risk of dying. In fact, I just logically proved it can't happen in Die Hard.

And if he couldn't die, then he wasn't at risk.

But characters in movies are seriously never at risk. They're either doomed to die or destined to survive. That's the way scripts work.

[Elennsar]

Apparently, the idea that the movie is telling a story, not summing up the entire world in <3 hours, is one we disagree on.

[Ice9]

Sure, I'll go with that - in the movie Die Hard, McClane never dies. In a world extrapolated from that movie, McClane could die. Sounds reasonable.

But the same thing applies to RPGs! You can say that in a given campaign, the PCs never die. But in a world extrapolated from that campaign, they could die. You're trying to hold RPGs to a standard of being the world, while a movie is just set in it.

And let's get one thing straight - it's a bit nonsensical to talk about the player needing to be heroic and face death, because you are not actually being a hero by playing an RPG!. You don't risk anything, and you don't accomplish anything either. That princess you saved? Fictional character - you would not be a better or worse person for having your character stay at the inn instead. So given that only the characters can be heroes, it only matters whether the characters think they can die. It's fine for the players to know that they're not risking anything, because they never are.


Now that said, there are valid reasons for character death being possible. Alea (the gambler's thrill) is something a lot of people enjoy from RPGs, and character death is one way to raise the stakes. It helps immersion for death to remain at least a possibility. And of course, sometimes a "survival" type of game is fun - zombie apocalypse, insanely deadly dungeon crawls, grim-n-gritty settings - all great when you're in the mood for them. But heroism - that's not going to come from "more deadliness".

[RandomCasualty2]

Apparently, the idea that the movie is telling a story, not summing up the entire world in <3 hours, is one we disagree on.

No actually I don't think we do disagree on that.

Die Hard is telling a story. It's telling the story of how John McClane kicks the crap out of a bunch of mercenaries.

And in that story, McClane can't die, because the story is about him winning.

If you tell a story that isn't that, then you're no longer telling the story of "Die Hard", and are in fact telling a different story.

The thing is that the "world" that you seem to want to describe isn't one that actually exists anywhere and it doesn't have any innate rules. Our only window into that world is novels, movies and even RPGs. So the whole concept of what can or can't happen in the "World of Die Hard" is entirely arbitrary and ultimately meaningless to the discussion.

The original question relating to heroism is :"Was John McClane in danger in Die Hard?"

And the answer is clearly no.

In fact, I showed you a logical proof of why that's true.

Is he in danger in some arbitrary extension of the "World of Die Hard", yeah, possibly. There could always be a sequel where he dies, or even a novel or RPG set in that world in which McClane could die. Given that the "World of Die Hard" can always be extended, anything is possible. McClane could fight the predator or time travel back to ancient Rome to take on Gladiator. If the movie is Aliens versus John McClane, then that's what happens. And yeah, the predator could end up killing McClane. Because the only certainty we have is on the stories that have already been published about McClane.

But all that stuff doesn't change the fact that Hans Grueber had zero chance of killing McClane in Die Hard and he totally was not at risk.

[Elennsar]

You're trying to hold RPGs to a standard of being the world, while a movie is just set in it.

And let's get one thing straight - it's a bit nonsensical to talk about the player needing to be heroic and face death, because you are not actually being a hero by playing an RPG!. You don't risk anything, and you don't accomplish anything either. That princess you saved? Fictional character - you would not be a better or worse person for having your character stay at the inn instead. So given that only the characters can be heroes, it only matters whether the characters think they can die. It's fine for the players to know that they're not risking anything, because they never are.

No, I'm saying that a rpg's rules need to include the possibility of generating the "(PC) dies." outcome. A given game session doesn't need to generate it, the game system does.

AS for the characters thinking they can die: No, it isn't enough. Because otherwise a character who thinks a mouse is a lion is taking on for all intents and purposes a terrible risk - which is as bad as the reverse attitude meaning it isn't a risk.

But heroism - that's not going to come from "more deadliness".

Yes it is. Eliminate deadliness as a possibility and you announce that any (player) character thinking he or she is at risk of dying is delusional. You announce that a character will NEVER have to worry about dying (either with victory torn from their grasp or torn from their enemy's grasp).

The most they have to worry about is pain and injury. And depending on what kind of pain or injury, that can rapidly be "damn little".

If you don't want to ever see someone be willing to lay down their life for what they believe in, having the PCs be immune to dying is fine - but eliminating that can eliminate a lot of "ultimate sacrifice" things and definately eliminates any "overcome despite their best efforts". Bye bye drama.


Battling your own inner demons might be heroic, but its not the kind of heroic that we want Aragorn to be doing when he's fighting the uruk-hai to try and battle his way to Boromir.

But all that stuff doesn't change the fact that Hans Grueber had zero chance of killing McClane in Die Hard and he totally was not at risk.

It does change whether or not Die Hard is "it didn't happen" or "it couldn't happen to begin with".

If it was impossible in the world to begin with, which is where the story is set, then it is not death defying in any way shape or form whether McClane or the audiance or both think he's at risk.

If it can happen in the world and this story simply is one where it appeared that it could happen but McClane (one way and another) survived, then he still is facing something that could kill him.