In message <45a6695f$0$138$157c6196@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Peter Knutsen <peter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> gleichman wrote:
> > Simon Smith wrote:
> >>Please expand on your own point, and/or ask me some questions to
expose the
> >>holes in my own assertions.
> >
> > It's not an easy one to expand and I had to do some consideration of
> > it. I knew the statement was horribly at odds with my own viewpoint, a
> > reaction intensified by the section of your post I quoted above.
> >
> > Flashy moves? Luxury? We have serious disconnect on what heroism is
> > here.
>
> Yup,
>
> >>From dictionary.com, first and thus most common meaning: "a man of
> > distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and
noble
> > qualities."
> >
> > Where's the courage in a easy scenario?
>
> There is, though, an older definition of "hero", which boils down to
> "extremely capable man". Ancient Greece or something. A definition that
> completely ignores the concept of idealism. It is basically, in RPG
> terms, a person built on an extremely generous point budget.
I do actually tend to prefer the modern and more romantic definition. But
I'm going to turn gleichman's question 'What noble qualities are displayed
by whacking down weaker foes?' on its head:
In a gritty scenario, characters must whack down every weaker foe as
quickly
and brutally as possible, in order to buy themselves time to deal with the
deadlier opponents. That /isn't/ noble. And I feel that is a
characteristic
that is common /both/ to the most deadly scenarios /and/ also to the
'Monty
Haul end of the spectrum. In deadly scenarios, characters don't have time
to
show mercy. They don't have time to try to make a called shot that
disables
an opponent without killing him - if they miss, they've wasted a round,
and
that could be the difference between victory and defeat. I contend that
showing mercy is a luxury. Characters can only do that if they've got a
little bit of slack - i.e. a slightly easier scenario. At the Monty Haul
end, the characters will slaughter everything because they can and because
it's fun, but I can't say I really care what happens in that sort of game.
So gleichman and I seem to be in agreement that whacking down weaker foes
isn't particularly noble, but I think it's about equally common in the
hardest scenarios as in heroic ones. In truly heroic scenarios, characters
should have sufficient leeway to start showing some restraint - disabling
and sparing weaker foes - and should begin doing so.
--
Simon Smith
When emailing me, please use my preferred email address, which is on my
web
site at http://www.simon-smith.org
|
