Quote from: Cranewings;444145Sure, it is heroic, but it also doubles the difficulty of the game. It takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever and turns it into enemies of the state. Evil always wins because good is dumb.

I don't follow you here. They're enemies of Faction A; presumably that will make them more appealing to Faction B or C. If they are in hot water with Faction A, I don't see how that "takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever." They might have to act covertly, go incognito, etc. in areas where Faction A is in power, yeah, but its part of a choice they made, and that could be an exciting game setup. (I remember a long time ago the PCs in one of my games became outlaws and all assumed masked "mystery men" identities, for example.)

Arguably this makes the game more difficult, yes, but being heroic is more difficult than being selfish or cowardly.

I don't understand the "Evil always wins because good is dumb" idea. Evil is very often dumb.

Quote from: Koltar;444151Yes, but not every NPC encountered needs to be an adversary, asshole, or a jerk. There is the 33% of the universe's NPCs that haven't met the player characters yet or made a decision about them.

 Also, I like to show in my games that just as doing stupid or idiotic actions has consequences so does doing heroic or smart actions.

Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.
(Not every GM, but many or some are like that)

- Ed C.

Absolutely.

For fucks sake, I'm not sure I've ever gotten to play a hero in a game without being shit all over. That's why I almost always GM, so I don't have to deal with it.

One of my friends was talking about a game we was playing while stationed in the UAE. They were all Lawful or Chaotic Good. Kings would loan them magical weapons and armor because of their reputations. They were way, way past buying magic items.

I can't even run a game like that, maybe until this one, because my players LOVE playing parties made up of selfish antiheroes. Still, I want to be that paladin that gets the kings sword for being a great hero. Never seen it happen.

Quote from: Koltar;444151Also, I like to show in my games that just as doing stupid or idiotic actions has consequences so does doing heroic or smart actions.

Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.
(Not every GM, but many or some are like that)

That's a good point.

As a GM I like to give the PCs the benefit of the doubt and I don't try to screw them over.

In the magistrate situation if the magistrate turned out to be evil, I don't mean to say I'd automatically set the PCs up and then tell them "then they hanged the girl. SUCKERS!"

I would probably make it plain what kind of individual he was - if they took the risk of defying him to take the girl to safety, I think that would improve their reputation with a lot of people; rebels against the evil order would aid them, etc.

Quote from: Benoist;444148Some people would love this sort of stuff and take opportunities from it, killing the evil magistrate, then escaping from the ensuing chaos, finding refuge in the city's underworld, plotting revenge against the whole corrupt system. Imagine V for Vandetta, but in a city like Ptolus. That could be epic!

LOL well, there is that.

Quote from: Cole;444152I don't follow you here. They're enemies of Faction A; presumably that will make them more appealing to Faction B or C. If they are in hot water with Faction A, I don't see how that "takes away their sandbox freedom pretty much forever." They might have to act covertly, go incognito, etc. in areas where Faction A is in power, yeah, but its part of a choice they made, and that could be an exciting game setup. (I remember a long time ago the PCs in one of my games became outlaws and all assumed masked "mystery men" identities, for example.)

Arguably this makes the game more difficult, yes, but being heroic is more difficult than being selfish or cowardly.

I don't understand the "Evil always wins because good is dumb" idea. Evil is very often dumb.

Yeah, the players could make lemonade out of lemons, but as a player myself, I get sick to death of being fed nothing but lemons.

Quote from: Cranewings;444153Kings would loan them magical weapons and armor because of their reputations. They were way, way past buying magic items. [...] Still, I want to be that paladin that gets the kings sword for being a great hero. Never seen it happen.

I see where you're coming from. For my part though I generally just do not enjoy the campaign model (which I have seen often) where the party are the loyal retainers of the Good Duke Von Hero from whom the rewards and the decisions alike tend to derive. I prefer my character to  be acting of his own will, which, let me reiterate, doesn't necessarily equate to a "selfish antihero;" he might well be Lawful Good.

Edit : I'm speaking in terms of "general" gaming; With certain stylized games, for example Pendragon where feudal loyalty and the gift/patronage economy are central, that's very different. Though in Pendragon heroism often comes at a bittersweet cost.

Quote from: Cole;444162I see where you're coming from. For my part though I generally just do not enjoy the campaign model (which I have seen often) where the party are the loyal retainers of the Good Duke Von Hero from whom the rewards and the decisions alike tend to derive. I prefer my character to  be acting of his own will, which, let me reiterate, doesn't necessarily equate to a "selfish antihero;" he might well be Lawful Good.

There is a difference I guess. It is why I like E6. I can write up the most powerful king of the land as Fighter 2, Aristocrat 4 with a handful of extra feats, and a second or third level party are very important to him. Hell, a 6th level party are the greatest heroes of the land. If the party is still helping Duke Von Hero at that point, they are practically superheroes doing it because they want to.

I have played as the loyal retainer of Mr. Great, and you are right, it can suck. It is lazy DMing and half the time, it is also stupid (why are we doing this, can the king send the army?). When it becomes good though, I think it is really good.

It depends. This sort of thing generally get's addressed in the original game pitch in which you discuss with the players what kind of tone they want for the campaign and what kind of things they envisage their characters doing.

I'd say  generally we tend towards Big Damn Heroes, but it varies.

With the exception of wanting to play Necessary Evil, my preference is to play the heroes.

In fact, I've spoken to my players, and pointed out. I've seen way too much negative things in real life to want to touch upon most of them in a game. I want the players to play heroic characters who make a difference. If they don't like that they are welcome to GM their own games, or find another GM. I don't get bothered by that--it is just what I want to spend my time on.

That doesn't mean I don't make them face hard choices, and complex moral elements--it just means when everything looks dark, they pull together and fight for what is good and right.

Quote from: Koltar;444123In the campaigns you GMs run - how often do you let players BE Heroes?
Enjoy the temporary adulation and fame of being Heroes?
Or as Whedon TV shows put it 'Big Damn Heroes' ?

If you more often a player: How often had you had that HERO! moment in a game?  
Where you felt the satisfaction of your character doing the Heroic or Right Thing in a BIG way?




- Ed C.



The song that inspired this thread's title:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xdo5f_ozf6E
"Heroes" by David Bowie

All the time.

That is, I don't force them to be heroes...but if they are naturally inclined to be as such, I let them see their good deeds matter.

When I ran Forgotten Realms in AD&D2e, people knew one of the PCs (a Paladin) by reputation. Now, this also meant he had some enemies...but he also had allies that he never personally knew because people saw, and recognized, the good that he did.

Timely post.

The PCs in my Stars without Number game just helped the local authorities capture some pirates and break a dishonest cargo broker.

Now, as GM I know they did it because the local law was too efficient to make crime palatable and assisting was more profitable than not, but the fact remains that from the locals' point of view the PCs risked their lives to help out.

That should get more than a monetary reward. It should get recognition and thanks.

Hm. Thanks K. That'll come up in the next session.

Quote from: Cranewings;444135Yeah, it is sand box, but the people I put in the sand box characterize it.

Absolutely!

I use 1D6 for NPCs in my campaigns and rate them Good/Selfish/Evil or Law/Neutral/Chaos depending on the world.  Then I assign a X in D6 chance for each depending on the world.   You can set the tone of the area / species / nation / setting by choice of X.

Quote from: Koltar;444151Sometimes I think GMs forget to account for the good ripple effects of a player character's actions.

True.

I run my Splintered Isles 4e setting with two key concepts:
1) No good deed goes unpunished.
2) No evil deed remains secret.

I design every session based only ripples from prior PC actions and its gone pretty awesomely insane.

Heroes are boring. Villains can be irritating after a while. The ideal for a PC for me is morally pragmatic. IE their scruples are determined by what sort of mess they are in.

Quote from: Ian Warner;444456Heroes are boring. Villains can be irritating after a while. The ideal for a PC for me is morally pragmatic. IE their scruples are determined by what sort of mess they are in.

See, I'm your opposite in that regard. I think those sorts of characters are the most boring.

The main thing heroes have to know, in order to be heroes, is How to Die.  For that, its required that they be allowed to do so.

RPGPundit