NationStates Jolt Archive

The title may be a little confusing, so I'll explain. Does anyone approve/disapprove of the use of soldiers or leader figures that seem to be held with a near-divine quality to them?

For instance, so say Nation A has a General that, for some reason, bolsters morale to amazing levels among his soldiers when he is present. Or Nation A has a political leader that, for some reason, despite Nation B's best attempts, cannot be killed.

Some of this is blatant godmodding, I know, but heroes in wartime are common place in history, and I was wondering what the NS community thinks of this subject.

For me, I think that the use of figures that can drive their nation or troops to excel beyond their limitations is alright, I mean, look at Patton, or Nimitz. It also adds to story. Point in case: Nation A's Admiral Joe has never been beaten in any war before. His troops love him, and always strive to do their best under his command. Nation B sends in an invasion fleet and learns that Admiral Joe is leading a fleet to stop them. Obviously, upon learning of Admiral Joe, Nation B's sailors are going to have a possible drop in morale. This adds to the story telling element because it reflects real emotions of soldiers during conflict, and provides an advantage or detrimental factor that an RPer must take into account during the conflict.

What does everyone else think?

Some nations use uber characters(one who comes to mind is The Transylvania with JWolf and the rest of his family). I haven't really seen anyone who objects to him using JWolf/family in rps.

The Empire of Cantelmium has a few such character's. Most of them are there to represent aspects of war/relations/economics and such. For example, one of my favorite such "heroes" is an "Golden Wings" pilot known as Jack Lister. While he is not invincible, his situation and actions are representative of that branch of the military. Others however, "General Lucius Victor" is a Napoleon-esque figure who DOES inspire such acts. My "heroes" are used sparringly and CAN be killed though. I'm not really in for WINNING things though, so long as it turns out + storywise.

Finally, something worth discussing.

I believe that heros are a worthwhile endeavour in any Role Play. I have mine, two specific figures. One My Leader, the other my Chief General, even my Chief of Foreign Affairs/Activities is a hero! I strive for these effects, both in MT and FT.

Just like life has villians, and its fun RPing them (admit it!), hero's add to the quality and bring a much needed balance, as they do IRL. Without them, everything would be dull, and boring.

I mean, a hero needs to rise to rally rebels to free their country, right? Same IRL, someone needs to step to the plate. It could be a normal worker, or a begger. It could be a soldier, or a peon. ANYTHING! If one man has the ability, he will stand up, the same with Role Plays!

Without a Hero, and many times without a VILLIAN, an RP is nothing but dull entertainment. Thats my belief, but there are expects of course...sometimes...if the stories deep enough...ah...whateva....I like heros, I use em, and I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE!

Heh, lot of enthusiasm, eh Anagonia?

As for myself, I do have a few heroes (and villains) that I use. My leaders son (now the actual Emperor of my nation), Antonio Orsini Gori, was a Fighter Pilot Captain of the 104th Tactical Fighter Squadron, named the Diavolo Ali, which consisted of a group of pilots known throughout the lands for their amazing skill and tenacity in battle. Of course, three of them are now dead; I didn't want to make them invincible, so there is balance. His wingmen were also key soldiers, as well as my former Emperor, Giovanni Dominicio Gori, a "man of the people," if you will allow the cliche.

As for villains, my nation has had plenty; Dictatore Paolo Gori (the subject of my newest RP), Senator Ignatius Lucchese (who had planned to kill the Emperor and his son, letting him take over the throne) and Maria Juanita Gori (The Emperor's maddened sister who led a rebellion against his rule). It seems that without a real bad-guy, an RP really has no purpose, or at least no story to it.

I agree. Wasn't there a thread on this way before. About the use of Heroes with the same 'divine quality.

Thing is.. its CRUICAL for some RPs. Characters that are above and beyond are good, and otherwise extremely important should not be killed like Random Soldier A, B or C.

If a king was killed just as easily as a regular soldier..what's special about him. What if a giant man, covered in armor got shot in the head and was dead, and he was the entire focus of your fear-driven army? Naturally these people are superior and deserve some bonuses when RPing them.

If Alexander was 'ordinary' why wouldn't we believe he was god's warrior or call him Alexander the Great...and the NAME means 'Protector' now BECAUSE of it.

Well my opinion is thats is ok, so long as this hero doesn't alter the coarse of conflict himself. Such as for example Damien Dreadfire taking on an entire Army with just a brigade and he alone killing more than his men. No human, or non-human could do that, and it'd be blatant godmode. Not that AMF has, thats just about the only national leader or hero that comes to mind that fights on the front.

Though in terms of warfare. If Admiral Joe is about of Nation A, but Nation B has rarely had much contact with Nation A. Then Admiral Joe's reputation isn't very good, espically if Nation B is facists and teaches its people that they are semi-gods, Joe is considered crap on a plate.

Just my two cents.

I believe though that heroes and villains shouldn't just live because you say so. No one takes a bullet to the head without AT LEAST becoming incapacitated. No, I hold the belief that a hero's (or villain's) own skills and traits are what place him above the common man, which is why he IS a key figure. Think of it, Airman 1 gets a missile on his tail and goes down because he is a regular soldier and doesn't have the experience to know what to do. Flight Lead Captain gets a missile on his tail, and then dives, releases a decoy flare, and rolls away from the missile as it chases the flare and detonates. Heroes are heroes because of what they do; not just because someone says " He lives because he is special."

I believe though that heroes and villains shouldn't just live because you say so. No one takes a bullet to the head without AT LEAST becoming incapacitated. No, I hold the belief that a hero's (or villain's) own skills and traits are what place him above the common man, which is why he IS a key figure. Think of it, Airman 1 gets a missile on his tail and goes down because he is a regular soldier and doesn't have the experience to know what to do. Flight Lead Captain gets a missile on his tail, and then dives, releases a decoy flare, and rolls away from the missile as it chases the flare and detonates. Heroes are heroes because of what they do; not just because someone says " He lives because he is special."

I completely agree with this statement. A similar argument comes to mind: It is when people 'yell' or 'argue' about what happens in movies and tv shows, calling stuff that they do impossible or "What are the chances?" Simple fact is that if they didn't [insert example of amazing action - Bond-esque] then there wouldn't be a movie to see.

(I know this was written poorly, but I am in a terrible rush)

An interesting topic, to be sure. When I was here before, I had characters that were super-people. In fact, most of my characters were. My main character, Jaime Wolfe, was two metres tall (~6'6") and could crush a house/shoot a fly from 100 metres. Exaggerations, but not by very much. However, he was my main character, and even though he was like this and a superhuman, he did have redeeming qualities, and did often act like a real person (I hope). His downside was his absolute power over anything. He was a national hero, saved the nation more than a few times, and ended up being elected prime minister in a landslide. Most of my other characters were similar, if only in the superhuman aspect, and my RPing was mostly crap quality.

When I returned, I knew I couldn't just write off a character like that. Most other characters I had I have now dismissed and replaced with more 'realistic' characters, but not for my main character. That would be too undignified, and also very out of character for both my nation and him, so I explained it as being a two-year decay of the nation under a different leader, followed by a rather long written story RP explaining what happened after that, involving a nationalist seizure of power, reunification wars, and then Mr. Jaime Wolfe's ultimate bloodless coup and return to power.

I try to make him less than superhuman now. He doesn't fight people, he doesn't crush houses, he doesn't shoot guns anymore. He could in a pinch, but I wouldn't make him as good as he was back then. My efforts to roleplay him more like a real person and less like a demigod are, I think, working out quite nicely.

Of course, I am limited by the parametres I set way back when. He is still as tall as he was, still as intimidating, and still has a history of violence. He is still a national hero, and managed to rally the entire nation against a vastly popular government and back towards him in one speech. He is still immensely charismatic. But he's no longer a superhuman. All the things above have to be there for continuity over my two-year absence. All the people in my nation love him still, et cetera, et cetera.

All in all, I don't think having heroes is a bad idea. The point about Patton and Nimitz/Napoleon/Caesar/Churchill/etc... is a very good one. There have been figures like this throughout history, and so they are not unfounded in the world of NS. But I don't think they should be too common, and I don't think they should be too good on a one-to-one basis. If Patton got in a gunfight with a dozen men, would he survive? Would your characters? Most historical 'heroes' have had at least one of two things going for them: Intelligence and Charisma. I think the thing that would really make a believable 'hero' in the world of NS would be someone with both, not necessarily hair-trigger reflexes.

I have no problem with that kind of stuff, as long as they don't go crazy in my territory without Telegramming me first.

I use one or two heroes, and all of them are Quetzals (the ruling family of Otagia). Daniel Quetzal is the CEO of PRA, as well as Regent Elect, so he doesn't really see any combat, but I still see him as a bit of a hero. David Quetzal, however, is a professional assassin, and thus sees quite a lot of action. He's uber, but hasn't walked away from an impossible situation yet. He's gotten out of some jams (detonated a flashbang in his hand, shot a person choking him in the chest with a full clip of AP ammunition, popped his arm out of its socket to get out of some very uncomfortable restraints, etc) but has never been magicked out of one.

I agree. Wasn't there a thread on this way before. About the use of Heroes with the same 'divine quality.

Thing is.. its CRUICAL for some RPs. Characters that are above and beyond are good, and otherwise extremely important should not be killed like Random Soldier A, B or C.

If a king was killed just as easily as a regular soldier..what's special about him. What if a giant man, covered in armor got shot in the head and was dead, and he was the entire focus of your fear-driven army? Naturally these people are superior and deserve some bonuses when RPing them.

If Alexander was 'ordinary' why wouldn't we believe he was god's warrior or call him Alexander the Great...and the NAME means 'Protector' now BECAUSE of it.

That's why generals and kings lead from the rear. They're just people.

I never liked this idea of invincible characters that can stroll onto a battlefield and single-handedly turn the tides against impossible odds. It's just.. cheesy, and it's very Hollywood that certain people never die. A really GOOD story involves character depth, and that occasionally means character death.

In my opinion, realistic characters with deep flaws are vastly more interesting then “superheros” that can do no wrong, are exceptionally good at armed combat, and never die. One of the main reasons is that a realistic character will often have much greater depth, and since he or she is much more similar to you and I it is possible to establish empathy, so that the reader cares what happens to the character. Superheros, on the other hand, are often portrayed one-dimensionally and can be so god-like that it is impossible to relate to them.

This isn’t to say that having characters with exceptional abilities is necessarily a bad thing (so long as it doesn’t lead to godmoding I don’t see a problem with characters gifted in one or two areas). I do think, however, that one should inject realism into characters by making them human, creating character flaws and doubts, fears, etc, for them.

That's why generals and kings lead from the rear. They're just people.

I never liked this idea of invincible characters that can stroll onto a battlefield and single-handedly turn the tides against impossible odds. It's just.. cheesy, and it's very Hollywood that certain people never die. A really GOOD story involves character depth, and that occasionally means character death.

Unfortunately there isn't much more depth after death. You also can't reuse the character after he dies... so if he is someone special, that is why people don't like letting them die.

No one takes a bullet to the head without AT LEAST becoming incapacitated. ."

When I was cleaning carpets my boss got shot three times--ankle, stomach, head. After he got shot in the head he beat the guy's ass.

The impact knocked his left eye right out of its socket.

When I was a teenager, a local in my neighborhood got hit with 9mm sqaure in the forehead---three days later he was walking around drinking a forty.

Being shot is hardly a measure of anything.

Those are real life examples of losers being amazing(My boss got shot because him and a friend jumped this little guy in a bar parking lot).

Heroes are a reality because WE need them to be.

People do extraordinary things all the time---odd statement.

If you mean motivation for being good--or being bad--yeah I like to read that.

I use heroes--my Former president was a Hero and even after his death most refuse to accept his demise--including the man keeping his chair warm.

Any recount of any war and you will story after story of a rough and horrible situation where one man stepped up to rally the cause or fight the good fight.

Because when that doesnt happen there is big X that goes in the L column.

From WWII with Ranger Sargents leaping up onto burning tanks to man the Ma Duece so there boys could get some cover away from overwhelming German forces who ultimately are overwhelmed by this monster of a man.

To guys in Vietnam who after being ambushed and having LITERALLY their intestines spill out on to the ground just scoop them up use a towel and one hand to hold them in while jacking shells into their weapon and continuing to fight.(True Story)

To Men like Rommel Who seemed to energize his troops--on more then occasion taking command rightin the LINE OF FIRE fearless pointing out targets for german guns all the while enemy fire rained down around him--still with out faltering he rushedfrom gun to gun letting the 'boys' know Rommel was with them---and saving the day.


Heroes are a reality--from Sgt York, to some Marine in Fallujah.

In my opinion, realistic characters with deep flaws are vastly more interesting then “superheros” that can do no wrong, are exceptionally good at armed combat, and never die. One of the main reasons is that a realistic character will often have much greater depth, and since he or she is much more similar to you and I it is possible to establish empathy, so that the reader cares what happens to the character. Superheros, on the other hand, are often portrayed one-dimensionally and can be so god-like that it is impossible to relate to them.

The thing is that when you are talking about battle or combat, a hero, which is defined as someone who prevails against great odds or something specia like that, is someone who would be good in battle - hence someone with military skills.

Nobody said they can do no wrong (that is called a GM), but if they are "heroes" then they are heroes for a reason. It isn't because they are just like you and me.

Unfortunately there isn't much more depth after death. You also can't reuse the character after he dies... so if he is someone special, that is why people don't like letting them die.

That's roleplay though. Heroic figures do die. General "Stonewall" Jackson died as the result of being shot by his own sentries when trying to enter camp.

Alexander the Great died young also.

Julius Ceaser died at like age 34.

Great figures do die. Refusing to let them die, even if they're getting shot at by an entire platoon is just.. childish.

That's roleplay though. Heroic figures do die. General "Stonewall" Jackson died as the result of being shot by his own sentries when trying to enter camp.

Alexander the Great died young also.

Julius Ceaser died at like age 34.

Great figures do die. Refusing to let them die, even if they're getting shot at by an entire platoon is just.. childish.

I didn't say that heroes didn't die. I said people don't want them to because there isn't much crap you can do with them after that.

You can list off as many heroes as you want who died. I can list off just as many who didn't die.

Yeah, DMG.
They arent Heroes if they are special---they are heroes if they ACT like they are special.

In my factbook--I have a group heroes--the Women and teenage children of a small villiage who abush a para-group and a unit of my national defnse force.

They did something overwhelming.
Havnt you ever, ran faster, hit harder, yelled louder then you KNOW you can--just on that one occasion when it really counted.
Those are Heroes to me
Or Guys Like Rommel who just dont stop---Alexander was the same way.

Heroes are as such:

The Hero is perfect
His Maxim is Persistance.


Someone who never quites.

It isn't because they are just like you and me.

Even people who have fought in combat against overwhelming odds or defeated larger armies as commanders are, in the end, just like you and me. By that I mean they are still humans. They still have flaws and they depth. Even Alexander III and Julius Ceasar made mistakes, worried about things, had doubts, etc.

What I dislike is the heroes in RPs that don't have any such flaws.

and they will die sooner or later....

The thing is though, people at NS use their "national hero" title as crutches. They're not special because they've done anything special in the game, players consider them "heros" because they can take fire from 20 different people at once and survive.

Even people who have fought in combat against overwhelming odds or defeated larger armies as commanders are, in the end, just like you and me. They are still humans. They still have flaws and they depth. Even Alexander III and Julius Ceasar made mistakes, worried about things, had doubts, etc.

First of all, no they are not like you and me. They are trained killing machines with strategic minds, cunning, persistance, [insert virtues], etc. like the world has never seen. If that weren't true, we wouldn't know their names...

Nobody is saying that NS Heroes shouldn't or don't have any flaws or make a single mistake. They are just saying that they exist because a) they need to b) people want them to and c) it is a fact that there are people like that.

As an old time NSer under a new face, let me say, I have never minded the use of heros in combat. They are pivitol figures, and can be used to take a storyline to new levels, after all, a heros has to die, eventually. Nothing lives ofrever, and with the passing of strange aeons, even Death too, may die.

And Villians, hated though they may be, everyone loves a good Villain, they allow us to sink to new levels of low, give us a freedom we cannot attain with the law, and sometimes, we the players in RL, find out just how evil we really are.

In the end, think of them as mega characters, place a realistic limit on them. a wee little nation such as myself, might have maybe one or two such characters, while a a nation of like 3 billion, might have 20 or 30 such characters. Maybe not all in the army, life is complicated, no matter if its RL, or the fake ones we make up everyday. A hero may be that docter that finally discovers the long awaited cure, or the common police man that always seems to spot trouble first. A villianous character might be the mad genious that whips up the Invincible Plague, or the Diplomat out for his own ends, instead of his country's.

stretch your minds, use your imaginations, and you'll find you have hero characters where you didn't before.

The thing is though, people at NS use their "national hero" title as crutches. They're not special because they've done anything special in the game, players consider them "heros" because they can take fire from 20 different people at once and survive.

That isn't special? Hell, if I could dodge bullets coming at me from twenty different trained killers, I would consider that pretty damn special.

Just because you haven't seen the origin of these heroes doesn't mean they don't exist. Stop heroes are RPed into heroes from regular soldiers or the like, while others are not RPed per se but have a history that the person (nation) has created for them. They have to start some time and just because it wasn't when you saw them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

That isn't special? Hell, if I could dodge bullets coming at me from twenty different trained killers, I would consider that pretty damn special.

Just because you haven't seen the origin of these heroes doesn't mean they don't exist. Stop heroes are RPed into heroes from regular soldiers or the like, while others are not RPed per se but have a history that the person (nation) has created for them. They have to start some time and just because it wasn't when you saw them doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Most people have their "hero" characters as their leaders. Then they throw them negligently into battle, and act like the person they're RPing against is some kind of demon for expecting that character to die when SHOT repeatedly.

People don't use their "heros" responsibly, it becomes trivial and everyday.

First of all, no they are not like you and me. They are trained killing machines with strategic minds, cunning, persistance, [insert virtues], etc. like the world has never seen. If that weren't true, we wouldn't know their names...
We know their names because they had great achievements (which is how they were different from you and me), not because they were single minded killing machines (most "heroes" from history are just ordinary people) who did not sometimes make very serious blunders.

They are just saying that they exist because a) they need to b) people want them to and c) it is a fact that there are people like that.
In my opinion only b and c are true (c is debatable, depending on what kind of "hero" you RP) and only for some RPers, not for all.

First of all, no they are not like you and me. They are trained killing machines with strategic minds, cunning, persistance, [insert virtues], etc. like the world has never seen. If that weren't true, we wouldn't know their names...

Nobody is saying that NS Heroes shouldn't or don't have any flaws or make a single mistake. They are just saying that they exist because a) they need to b) people want them to and c) it is a fact that there are people like that.
No most are not trained Killing machines. That is absurd.

Especially American/UK service men---BOYS.

The Heroes of WWII---BOYS.

When circumstances dictate a particular response that is what you do.

The hero is simply the man who against all natural instinct rushes into the burning building, dives into the water, stands in the face of an enemy, they are not Killing machines.

They are ordinary people.

Havnt you ever heard the phrase "Threaten my life and with it I will be a fool." Heroism and being fool hearted are very similar.

Feck that.

I am sorry DMG, you define hero differently--I mean no offense.

All my stuff is in my opinion--personally I agree to just disagree on what makes a hero.
That is really kind of personal opinion anyway.

Unfortunately there isn't much more depth after death. You also can't reuse the character after he dies... so if he is someone special, that is why people don't like letting them die.

Even death can be flexible. Both Remiel De Drakan (Mine!) and Daniel Masaki (CW's) have died; Daniel returned because it wasn't his time by the will of Godular's supreme Deity Sojun; while Remiel was brought back by the will of Chaos. My rebirth was alot more interesting and graphic than his; but also resulted in the relative Perma-Death of Marcus De Drakan, first Emperor of Chronosia.

Thus, I'd say that really my 'Heroes' are limited to the Primarchs I most often use; Remiel, Lucian, Cabot and Severino; I could deal with losing anyone, but probably not them :)

Most people have their "hero" characters as their leaders. Then they throw them negligently into battle, and act like the person they're RPing against is some kind of demon for expecting that character to die when SHOT repeatedly.

People don't use their "heros" responsibly, it becomes trivial and everyday.

Well, I haven't experienced that and I was not taking that side of the argument.

We know their names because they had great achievements (which is how they were different from you and me), not because they were single minded killing machines (most "heroes" from history are just ordinary people) who did not sometimes make very serious blunders.

You can't possibly tell me that you think the greatest military minds in history are just like you and me. When you become someone equal to Cesear or Napoleon or Ghengis Kahn, you be sure to tell me.



What you guys are failing to grasp about heroes is that by the definition they aren't oridinary people. If you think you can look through the tens of millions of people that fought in WWII and not fine ONE "hero" type character who is a trained, cold, calculating machine of a man, you are dead wrong.

Now, if someone said that all of their characters and soldiers were on the level of heroes, that would be different - but nobody is saying that.

You can't possibly tell me that you think the greatest military minds in history are just like you and me. When you become someone equal to Cesear or Napoleon or Ghengis Kahn, you be sure to tell me.

All people are different, of course, and these people achieved great military feats but at their core they were just like you and me in that they were all too human. They were not perfect by any means and they made mistakes, often extremely serious ones. In my opinion too many RP their "heroes" without this "ordinariness".

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

I don't have a problem with heroes, so long as you recognise that sending them into risky situations is to risk their life. That risk may be large or small, but it is there, and you should always keep it in mind befor sending your Hero in.

If you are not prepared to risk your Hero, then you have three choices; either don't use them, use them retroactively(IE, don't say who your Admiral is until after the battle), or make OOC arrangements for their survival.


If you don't, you leave yourself open to situations where your Hero finds themself in an inescapable situation, and you either have to let them die or blantently godmod to save them.

And the whole "I know a guy who knows a guy who knew a guy whose cousin got shot in the head with a 9mm or .22 and survived!" argument doesn't really have any bearing, since a 9mm isn't an assault rifle. An assault rifle BLOWS YOUR HEAD APART. Look what happened to JFK. His head fell apart when he got shot by a 30-06 and he died within 15 minutes.

And the whole "I know a guy who knows a guy who knew a guy whose cousin got shot in the head with a 9mm or .22 and survived!" argument doesn't really have any bearing, since a 9mm isn't an assault rifle. An assault rifle BLOWS YOUR HEAD APART. Look what happened to JFK. His head fell apart when he got shot by a 30-06 and he died within 15 minutes.
First dont wait nearly two entire pages to comment on something I have said, then do it right after I log out.

Second I am grown man not one of these little high school kids.

Third, the several assaults and Murders I have had the misfortune of witnessing over the course of life aside. I know several people who have been shot, stabbed and had their throat cut.

AK-47s(7.62mm),(.223.5.56mm), 20 gauge slug, .38, 9mm, those are the people who lived---the guy I watched get shot to death--.25 caliber pistol so please spare your googled understanding of mortality in a violent situation. Until you have had that gun pointed at your head dont presume to much of understanding.

My kids Icecream man got shot five times in the Chest with an AK-he still peddles ice-cream.

One of my co-workers was hit with friendly fire in Desert Storm, he still drives a truck and he is not the walking dead---never pierced his skull--that was an assault rifle.

I am friends with a guy from the Ukraine who fought in the Red Army in Afghanistan, he got his throat cut--and managed to play dead while his life leaked out all over the floor. I have seen the scar, it isnt easy to hide or fake.

The bearing on the subject is this--all of these people (from MY boss who got shot in THREE times and then proceeded to beat the shooter to the ground) did extraordinary things when they were at BEST ordinary people.

Your life being placed in the balance, and a little luck and you become a hero.

Which shows the unrealism of the popular notion of "heroes" in NS. Whether you are the most highly decorated commando in a nation or some random office worker, your chance of surviving a shot to the head is pretty much exactly the same (not all that good).

First dont wait nearly two entire pages to comment on something I have said, then do it right after I log out.


Fifteen posts and 35 minutes do not a belated response make.

And I can't see what you being offline has to do with anything; this isn't IRC, his post would still be here latter for you to respond to.


Normally I wouldn't bother butting in like this, but your complaint is rather absurdly baseless.

[/hijack]

Which shows the unrealism of the popular notion of "heroes" in NS. Whether you are the most highly decorated commando in a nation or some random office worker, your chance of surviving a shot to the head is pretty much exactly the same (not all that good).

You keep on insisting on making the point of surviving a shot to the head. Nobody thinks or RPs that their character can survive direct shots to the head - frankly I think you could have a valid argument, but you are making one that is not necessary or the correct one to be made.

You keep on insisting on making the point of surviving a shot to the head.
I've not been arguing that point though, others have. My posts have been on a completely different issue. The post you just quoted has been my only reference to shots to the head.

What makes a character a hero? How is hero defined on NS?

What is the difference between a hero and a character?

What you guys are failing to grasp about heroes is that by the definition they aren't oridinary people. If you think you can look through the tens of millions of people that fought in WWII and not fine ONE "hero" type character who is a trained, cold, calculating machine of a man, you are dead wrong.

You realise 'trained, cold, calculating killing machines' tend not to be heroes, right? They tend to be the ones who perpetrated atrocities, who didn't give a shit about killing prisoners, who wiped out villages and towns.

The fireman who goes into a burning building to save a child is a hero. The policeman who stands his ground against a hundred rioters is a hero. The soldiers who fight to the last man are heroes.

The real definition of hero in the sense I'd use it is 'someone who is willing to sacrifice themself so that others may go on,' not someone who happened to be good at killing people. And they are people just like you or I who happen to be willing to make that sacrifice. To be honest, the cold hearted, calculating killer isn't a particularly interesting character anyway; it's a re-run of the classic 'heartless assassin' character made by a lot of people new to character RP. Yes, he's cold, he's ruthless, he has no heart...He's also completely uninteresting unless you cover how he became that way or place some glimmer of flaw or actual humanity in him.

Also, this is very similar to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441216) thread. My post there:

Why on Earth does this require a guide? You're basically telling people how to perform the amazing feat of using a character in more than one RP, unless you're genuinely advocating that people start referring to any halfway-competant character or unit as a 'hero unit,' which is ridiculous. A good character has strengths and weaknesses; a President who gets reelected no matter how many times he screws up or a James Bond character who can walk out of any situation with his shirt unruffled are just silly.

If the only reason for a ship, planet, city or character to pull through is 'because they're a mighty pirate!' rather than because it makes for an exciting plotline or because they genuinely outfought the enemy, you're into noob-war territory where the enemy gets defeated because they're the enemy and you win because you're the good guy.

What you're advocating here is called wank; it's unreasonable stuff that's left to carry on anyway because it makes for good RP. Wank is the big ships in ID4 having invincible forcefields so they have to be defeated with cunning rather than straighforward blasting. Wank is the Empire having every possible advantage over the Rebels because it makes for more drama. Wank is Lex Luthor being able to pull kryptonite out whenever it's dramatically necessary.

Trying to put together a set of special rules requiring consent for wanking is a little redundant, being as everything requires player consent anyway.

I prefer 'plot device' rather than wank in response to that last little rant.

Plot Devices, one and all.

Wank is Heinrich Himmler being Unbondable Tremere Antitribu Primogen of Berlin...

I prefer 'plot device' rather than wank in response to that last little rant.

Plot Devices, one and all.

Wank is Heinrich Himmler being Unbondable Tremere Antitribu Primogen of Berlin...

All plot devices are, by their very nature, wanky; the 'rules' are suspended for the sake of the plot, and some might find that unacceptable. The difference between that and Godmoding is that Godmoding is suspending the 'rules' for the purpose of winning or being superior, with no care for whether it makes good RP.

To put it more simply, wankery is means to an end, Godmoding is an end in itself.

Who says a hero has to be a character at all? Think about Starcraft, and the Hunter Killer(Hydralisk) special units. Think about C&C, with Tanya, nd the Mammoth MkII. Each and every member of my ACS Division qualifies as a "hero" in that they raise the moral of those that fight alongside them, and are generally better than the average soldier(may have something to do with the Armor though). I use Heroes like Iron Mike O'Neal, the ACS Commander, in the frontlines, with his menacing Daemon Motif armor, because that's where he BELONGS. Tassadar and Zeratul have fought against Chaos repeatedly in skirmishes and small battles. The Metal Militia Series has fought in every war I've ever entered, and only ever lost a single ship(that only losing one ship was more luck than anything else), sure, there are only 29 of the MM Classes in existence, but they're Unique(except, ironically, MMII, hull number 4, Death, which died, and had to be replaced). Characters and Heroes are not the same thing, not by a long shot. Heroes are rare units, that you usually only have a few of. Characters on the other hand, are Named. They have powers and abilities most men lack, Iron Mike with his style and tactics, Honor, the ultimate deep space startegist and commander, Tassadar, High Templar and deadly fighter, Zeratul, Prelate of the Dark Templar, Edmund Duke, a poor fighter, but the best general in the Dominion, Jim Raynor, a former lawman turned commander in the Dominions Guard. They're all SPECIAL. Heroes are common, it's the CHARACTERS you have to watch out for.

Who says a hero has to be a character at all?

The traditional use of the word says. You wouldn't call a battleship or a plane a 'hero' outside of a videogame, where it's used interchangably with 'special,' or 'unique.' IIRC it stems from the C&C series which first had special characters and then moved vehicles with hero-like abilities into the same category and just stuck the label 'hero unit' on them all for simplicity.

Regardless, in real life you might say that its commander / driver / pilot / AI is a hero, but you wouldn't say that of the entire vehicle. There's nothing intrinsically heroic about inanimate metal.

If you are not prepared to risk your Hero, then you have three choices; either don't use them, use them retroactively(IE, don't say who your Admiral is until after the battle), or make OOC arrangements for their survival.Problem: They're YOUR characters and you have the right to have particular characters survive if you want them to. During a war RP which I ended up having to retcon, the person I was RPing with made it eminently clear he didn't want his leader killed and I complied with his wish even though under any other circumstances, he would have been a dead man.

That's where communication with the person or people you're RPing with is essential. Tell them which characters may not be killed. If they refuse to comply with your wishes, they earn an ignore.

The traditional use of the word says. You wouldn't call a battleship or a plane a 'hero' outside of a videogame, where it's used interchangably with 'special,' or 'unique.' IIRC it stems from the C&C series which first had special characters and then moved vehicles with hero-like abilities into the same category and just stuck the label 'hero unit' on them all for simplicity.
I don't necessarily agree. To me, it's like having a single ship be at the centre of the story, such as the USS Enterprise in Star Trek or the USS Constitution during the War of 1812. The real life ship might be the better example since three different men were captains and all three defeated their British opponents.

I don't necessarily agree. To me, it's like having a single ship be at the centre of the story, such as the USS Enterprise in Star Trek or the USS Constitution during the War of 1812. The real life ship might be the better example since three different men were captains and all three defeated their British opponents.

Yes, but it's still true that nobody would ever say 'The USS Constitution is / was a hero.'

First dont wait nearly two entire pages to comment on something I have said, then do it right after I log out.

Second I am grown man not one of these little high school kids.

Third, the several assaults and Murders I have had the misfortune of witnessing over the course of life aside. I know several people who have been shot, stabbed and had their throat cut.

AK-47s(7.62mm),(.223.5.56mm), 20 gauge slug, .38, 9mm, those are the people who lived---the guy I watched get shot to death--.25 caliber pistol so please spare your googled understanding of mortality in a violent situation. Until you have had that gun pointed at your head dont presume to much of understanding.

My kids Icecream man got shot five times in the Chest with an AK-he still peddles ice-cream.

One of my co-workers was hit with friendly fire in Desert Storm, he still drives a truck and he is not the walking dead---never pierced his skull--that was an assault rifle.

I am friends with a guy from the Ukraine who fought in the Red Army in Afghanistan, he got his throat cut--and managed to play dead while his life leaked out all over the floor. I have seen the scar, it isnt easy to hide or fake.

The bearing on the subject is this--all of these people (from MY boss who got shot in THREE times and then proceeded to beat the shooter to the ground) did extraordinary things when they were at BEST ordinary people.

Your life being placed in the balance, and a little luck and you become a hero.

First of all, don't try to make this into something personal.

Second of all, I don't really care how old you are. When you come online and join the legions of people who claim to have connections with hundreds of events of misfortune, I just roll my eyes.

Third, getting shot in the chest, getting your neck slashed, getting randomly hit by a glancing shot has nothing to do with the subject. It doesn't make ANY of those people heros.

People get shot all the time, and they die. I've never heard of anyone that's been shot in the torso 20 times and survived it. I've never heard of anyone that's been directly hit by a grenade launcher and survived the explosion.

These are the simple facts of life. When you throw your NS leadership into combat and then they get ambushed or cornered and hosed with gunfire, you have to be adult enough to accept that the character is dead. You can't just say, "He's a national hero so he can survive that!" and expect to get the character out somehow.

Let me tell you kids about a -real- hero.


The President of the United States
in the name of The Congress
takes pleasure in presenting the

Medal of Honor

to


*YOUNG, RODGER W.

Rank and Organization: Private, U.S. Army, 148th Infantry, 37th Infantry Division. Place and Date On New Georgia, Solomon Islands, 31 July 1943. Entered Service at: Clyde, Ohio. Birth: Tiffin, Ohio. G.O. No.: 3, 6 January 1944.

Citation:
On 31 July 1943, the infantry company of which Pvt. Young was a member, was ordered to make a limited withdrawal from the battle line in order to adjust the battalion's position for the night. At this time, Pvt. Young's platoon was engaged with the enemy in a dense jungle where observation was very limited. The platoon suddenly was pinned down by intense fire from a Japanese machinegun concealed on higher ground only 75 yards away. The initial burst wounded Pvt. Young. As the platoon started to obey the order to withdraw, Pvt. Young called out that he could see the enemy emplacement, whereupon he started creeping toward it. Another burst from the machinegun wounded him the second time. Despite the wounds, he continued his heroic advance, attracting enemy fire and answering with rifle fire. When he was close enough to his objective, he began throwing handgrenades, and while doing so was hit again and killed. Pvt. Young's bold action in closing with this Japanese pillbox and thus diverting its fire, permitted his platoon to disengage itself, without loss, and was responsible for several enemy casualties.

These are the simple facts of life. When you throw your NS leadership into combat and then they get ambushed or cornered and hosed with gunfire, you have to be adult enough to accept that the character is dead. You can't just say, "He's a national hero so he can survive that!" and expect to get the character out somehow.

More correctly, if you don't want them to die you should arrange this with the other player[s] beforehand rather than try to get them out of it inside the thread after someone's already RPed an event that should by all rights kill them.

It's fine to say by telegram before an RP has really begun that, say, 'I have a lot of plans with characters X and Y so could we agree that they won't be killed during this thread?' It's a lot less fine to expect a player to swallow a series of IC events that should kill characters X and Y being waved aside with some ridiculous dramatic contrivance during the thread because you were too lazy to notify them you wanted those characters around afterwards.

Problem: They're YOUR characters and you have the right to have particular characters survive if you want them to. During a war RP which I ended up having to retcon, the person I was RPing with made it eminently clear he didn't want his leader killed and I complied with his wish even though under any other circumstances, he would have been a dead man.

That's where communication with the person or people you're RPing with is essential. Tell them which characters may not be killed. If they refuse to comply with your wishes, they earn an ignore.


Actually.

There's this little thing called "godmodding" and that applies when you pull the "It's my character and they survive if I want them to" stunt in the middle of a war. Especially if you're throwing that character into a battle where your side might lose, or that particular character might get cornered by a platoon of infantry and shot about 45 times.

Problem: They're YOUR characters and you have the right to have particular characters survive if you want them to. During a war RP which I ended up having to retcon, the person I was RPing with made it eminently clear he didn't want his leader killed and I complied with his wish even though under any other circumstances, he would have been a dead man.

That's where communication with the person or people you're RPing with is essential. Tell them which characters may not be killed. If they refuse to comply with your wishes, they earn an ignore.



Yes, I did rather sugest making ooc arrangments with the other RPers to insure a character's survival. It's in the part you quoted, in fact.

And yes, you have to right to have a character survive, but if you take this for granted then you risk them falling into situations where you have to godmod to keep them alive.

Excuse me, Georgi Zhukov began his career in the Bolshevik 1st Cavalry Division together with Joseph Stalin, being part of this unit protected him from being executed during Stalins great Purge in the Thirties.
Then he was sent to the East where he beat a Japanese army, he returned to the West to play a crucial part in the great patriotic war.
He defeated the Germans at the gates of Stalingrad and conquered (part of) their nation.

He was (officially) a 'Hero of the Soviet Union', who had never lost a single battle in his career. He was so popular among the people that Stalin, afraid of what his popularity may do to his position, sent him off to a far away post.

Actually.

There's this little thing called "godmodding" and that applies when you pull the "It's my character and they survive if I want them to" stunt in the middle of a war. Especially if you're throwing that character into a battle where your side might lose, or that particular character might get cornered by a platoon of infantry and shot about 45 times.Read what I wrote again. For one thing, NationStates is a consent-based RPG and for another thing, I argued for communication with the people you're RPing with.

I've been playing this game long enough to know what "godmodding" is.

Read what I wrote again. For one thing, NationStates is a consent-based RPG and for another thing, I argued for communication with the people you're RPing with.

I've been playing this game long enough to know what "godmodding" is.

"Consent-based" doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to". When I RP with someone, the only thing I'm consenting to is that both sides will play fairly, maturely and realisticly.

"Consent-based" doesn't mean "I can do anything I want to". When I RP with someone, the only thing I'm consenting to is that both sides will play fairly, maturely and realisticly.

Actually, Consent-based is where they allow that certain thing to happen. It doesn't have to be realistic at all. As long as they agree to it, then it will work.

It is purest folly to believe that an individual can save [insert nation here]. Wars are not one by heroes, they are one by firepower and force, and the application of strategy and tactics

The man who made that quote was Commisar Yarrick, who was a brilliant commander, and also created a popular image that his men practically worshiped. People like that should be aloud, but the statement above still stands.

The man who made that quote was Commisar Yarrick, who was a brilliant commander, and also created a popular image that his men practically worshiped. People like that should be aloud, but the statement above still stands.

Heroes win wars all the time on NS, back when he was still alive The Darchon turned the tide in several conflicts, Remiel is capable of shattering rank upon rank of enemy, and "Danny Boy" Masaki just plain won't DIE. And that was all in the same war!

Well, without masterly roleplaying, I call that godmoding.

Well, without masterly roleplaying, I call that godmoding.

The Darchon is a ten foot tall Protoss, with the abilities of all the various Templar Castes, combined(later revealed as Adun, the revered Templar of Protoss mythology). It killed anything other than another Character with little difficulty.

Remiel is a Primarch, a near God-like Space Marine, he summoned Daemons, and used his creepy "Slaaneshiness" to give everyone the willies.

Danny Boy Masaki, he's just a Jedi Elemental Master, who encountered someone with a penchant for throwing lightning around(something that affects him very little). Not only is he a Jeedai. He's a PLOT DEVICE leve Jeedai. And CW always had a good way to keep him alive, and us laughing, so we let him live.

Plot explanation is differant from good rping.

Plot explanation is differant from good rping.

The purpose of RP is the plot. Plot explanation DEFINES good RP. At least in my opinion.

Hey, don't forget Helion. Turned losing his flagship into a huge win for the Khurganate, gained a huge boon from Tzeentch and still managed to vape a planet before day's end.

Hey, don't forget Helion. Turned losing his flagship into a huge win for the Khurganate, gained a huge boon from Tzeentch and still managed to vape a planet before day's end.

And how many of his ships ended up dropped in the sun of Thrashia Preime before I retreated? :p

Well, by good rping, I meant keeping it fair and fun for all invoved, but thats a personal definaiton. And Boozian rurals still regard lasers as magic. Hardly an ft benchmark.

Well, by good rping, I meant keeping it fair and fun for all invoved, but thats a personal definaiton. And Boozian rurals still regard lasers as magic. Hardly an ft benchmark.

Wow. Fair and Fun for the screwballs I RP with is a very loose term. Just don't let Remiel show you his "Whip of Pleasure"...*shudders*

And, my rurals regard Magick as Magick....:p

Thats not exactly the same:p

This debate has went from Hero unit disccussion to Plot definition. A little off topic I think.....:)

Well, by good rping, I meant keeping it fair and fun for all invoved, but thats a personal definaiton. And Boozian rurals still regard lasers as magic. Hardly an ft benchmark.

Pft. Cavemen.

Pft. Cavemen.

FNEE! Don't insult the Cavemen, just look what happened to Geico...

FNEE! Don't insult the Cavemen, just look what happened to Geico...

Yeah, mayne do a little reasearch next time.

Bad news folks, we strayed off topic.

The good news, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

Yeah, mayne do a little reasearch next time.

Bad news folks, we strayed off topic.

The good news, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.

This is II... What is this thing "on-topic?"

Hm... generally I prefer the idea of idea RPing the harsh reality of war over glorifying it, introducing characters, often young and naive grunts, and using their point of view to get a feel for the conflict. So heroes for me are normal metahumans* who do do extraordinary things for others, like GMC said 'someone who is willing to sacrifice themself so that others may go on,'. They can be anyone from the lowest grunt to the highest officer, but there are limits of practicality... for most people it's just crazy to have the leader of your nation fighting on the frontline when it's his duty to stay alive and lead the nation to victory, that doesn't mean they can't be heroic but they need to think of their duty first.

This doesn't mean to say I disagree wholey with the idea of hero figures on the battlefield, there will always be rolemodels for others to look up to and it makes for good character developement so long as it isn't abused to the point of godmod, sure they may boost moral but everyone is still human. It's also worth noting that if you really like a character and want him to survive, sending him to the frontline to lead your most daring assault isn't the way to go about with unless you've got a OOC understanding with the other player.

* Iuthia isn't limited to humans, though they are much more common. This said, however all the other metahumans are similar size and strength (or weaker) to humans so it's hardly like super magic elves.

You realise 'trained, cold, calculating killing machines' tend not to be heroes, right? They tend to be the ones who perpetrated atrocities, who didn't give a shit about killing prisoners, who wiped out villages and towns.

You are bringing in the concept of "good" and "bad." To one person, Malcom X might be a hero for fighting for his cause and to another person he might be a villian who condoned violence. (Note: I am trying to avoid Godwin's law here)

The fireman who goes into a burning building to save a child is a hero. The policeman who stands his ground against a hundred rioters is a hero. The soldiers who fight to the last man are heroes.

The real definition of hero in the sense I'd use it is 'someone who is willing to sacrifice themself so that others may go on,' not someone who happened to be good at killing people. And they are people just like you or I who happen to be willing to make that sacrifice. To be honest, the cold hearted, calculating killer isn't a particularly interesting character anyway; it's a re-run of the classic 'heartless assassin' character made by a lot of people new to character RP. Yes, he's cold, he's ruthless, he has no heart...He's also completely uninteresting unless you cover how he became that way or place some glimmer of flaw or actual humanity in him.

You are confusing the meaning of a hero in the real world (someone people look up to as an example and admire for highly virtuous traits) and a hero in the NS and gaming sense (someone with incredible or unique skills). We aren't talking about that school teacher who gets up every morning to teach at a school with mentally handicapped people (though of course s/he is a hero), we are talking James Bonds...

We are also not equating our heros that are skilled military or spy personnel to Lex Luther, no soul, type people. You can have incredible skill as an assassin and still be a caring human being when you hang up your shoes for the night. However, if someone does want to make a ruthless character with no heart or sense of morality, that is completely realistic and his choice to do so (try to tell me that cruel people don't exist in the world...). Just because you don't find him interesting as a character, doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Hm... generally I prefer the idea of idea RPing the harsh reality of war over glorifying it, introducing characters, often young and naive grunts, and using their point of view to get a feel for the conflict. So heroes for me are normal metahumans* who do do extraordinary things for others, like GMC said 'someone who is willing to sacrifice themself so that others may go on,'. They can be anyone from the lowest grunt to the highest officer, but there are limits of practicality... for most people it's just crazy to have the leader of your nation fighting on the frontline when it's his duty to stay alive and lead the nation to victory, that doesn't mean they can't be heroic but they need to think of their duty first.

This doesn't mean to say I disagree wholey with the idea of hero figures on the battlefield, there will always be rolemodels for others to look up to and it makes for good character developement so long as it isn't abused to the point of godmod, sure they may boost moral but everyone is still human. It's also worth noting that if you really like a character and wa nt him to survive, sending him to the frontline to lead your most daring assault isn't the way to go about with unless you've got a OOC understanding with the other player.

* Iuthia isn't limited to humans, though they are much more common. This said, however all the other metahumans are similar size and strength (or weaker) to humans so it's hardly like super magic elves.

*Finally found the quote he was looking for, and a post that made it relevant*

This is attributed to an anonymous American Tank Commander, at the beginning of the first Gulf War:

"Heroes are made because somebody screwed up. We don't want any heroes today."

Now, I like using my premade character heroes, but sometimes the most compelling hero is the last man holding the line against an advancing wave of tanks an infantry, armed with a rifle, low on ammo, hope, and with reinforcements "En route, ETA: ???" That's how I got Iron Mike, he led a plattoon of ragtag elements from a shattered battalion , freed several trapped armor divisions, and, to top it all off, attached himself to an enemy ship, and detonated a jury rigged thermonuclear device. BY HAND. Yes, he survived, with exactly one arm, a head, and a torso.

(Tag to later post)

So long as it's not abused I don't mind it. If someone wants to RP a heroic action then they will have to concider what they are trying to pull of and who they are RPing with... if it's spontanious and hasn't been discussed it wouldn't be surprising to find the other player realistically trying to kill them, leaving you with the choice of taking the hit or godmoding... usually there is some middle ground like incapacitation and subsequent capture or rescue, but it's bad form to try and force unlikely heroics.

The majority of players in Nationstates will tolerate heroics providing they don't get out of hand; there aren't many players who want their wars to turn into actions movies, with the all Iuthian Hero saving the day and killing thousands of soldiers with his trusty M60... it harms the fantasies credability and ultimately makes the story worse, not better. I'd make a point of keeping significant heroics rare, otherwise they stop being special and it loses it's effect, small heroics like dragging your injured team mate out of the line of fire can be done more commonly to represent their training and morality, but it's often just as interesting, if not more, to show your troops fear to illustrate that war is hell and that they can't all cope with the high demands it makes.

As for this notion of the NS definition of hero, it's all just opinion. I don't agree with the idea of 'hero' class characters who walk through battlefields as the angels of death playing the rolemodel for all the NPCs. I beleive in heroism is just an act in nationstates used to develope a character and their morals, there are characters who represent the best of the best for some nations... but they aren't automatically dubbed a hero unless they act herioc, I agree with GMC in that such notions probably came from Command and Conquer or Warhammer and it really needs a different way of describing such a class of characters.

OOC:

I'd have to agree with DMG on this one, to get this thing back on-topic. The individual who is willing to sacrifice himself so that others may live or the mission may be accomplished, etc. would be the most accurate depiction of the NS hero, since most heroes are combat-oriented. Another trait heroes have that I think none of you have touched on is luck. Without it, that critical little nuance of your master battle plan is useless because the enemy tacked an extra tank platoon onto his force, or chose to take a different route to his objective. Guys who charge face-first into machine-gun fire and come out unscathed are lucky. Guys like the aforementioned people who have been shot several times and survive are lucky, because bullets do all sorts of crazy things when they leave the gunbarrel and impact flesh/bone. Stuff like following the curve of the skull and missing the brain entirely while leaving both an entry and exit wound. Stuff like splitting off an exact quarter of the skull after ricocheting off the ground and spilling brain matter across the sand.

Hereos, or 'individuals of note' as I like to refer to them, need to have some sort of backstory that makes them human, vulnerable, mortal, whatever. So long as they have the chance of dying (this eliminates the use of some form of super-armor unless that's the standard of the day and there's an equally effective weapon system to defeat this armor system). The backstory needs to have some sort of defining message that makes the character who they are. For instance, my main character, Dekker Bray, is a former Marine turned Navy SEAL (From the USA, and not some created nation), who enlisted out of need rather than desire. At age 17, he had a fiancee with a child on the way after a shotgun wedding, and needed money to support his new family. The career in warfare grew from simple nessecity to a practical way to make a living (As such, he's a hard-working and dedicated individual). This progressed to mercenary work, where he is now. This did not come without a cost, however. At age 34, his son is 17, and rarely sees his father. His parents seperated when he was about ten and Dekker's ex-wife has been sapping child-support from him ever since. Dekker's father followed much the same path in contract work after Vietnam, and was not around for Dekker, but provided for him just the same (Dekker has stashed a large amount of money in a college fund for his son, hoping he'll take a different path than he did).

Dekker has seen combat in some of the worst areas of the world, both real (Grenada, Iraqi Freedom, Desert Storm) and NS (Has fought in civil wars, outright conflicts, covert actions, etc.), and has survived through a combination of luck (not many rounds have been fired at him), skill (he's handy with rifles, handguns, knives, fists, feet, stuff befitting his expeirence), and tactics (he stays behind cover when ever possible, operates stealthily like a former SEAL would, doesn't kick in the front door guns-a-blazing when its not the only option, and generally does his best not to get shot at). He will lead operations behind enemy lines from time to time, but any open-war combat he participates in is limited to the special operations realm and not frontline combat.

I consider him a pretty human individual, more of a tragic hero than an outright hero, but a unique entity none-the-less. He can't hit someone in the head with a handgun with a single shot from 100 meters, he can't enter a fist-fight and not take a punch, he can't 'dodge' bullets (He can, however, dive behind something he believes will stop them), he can't move things with his mind (He does, however keep himself in extreme physical condition befitting someone of his profession, and can resort to brute force when needed), and can't run across walls (He's roughly 243 pounds, and six foot two), across ceilings, fly, or do anything a human being is physically incapable of doing, like throw fireballs or resist massive jolts of electricity or doses of tranquilizers.

By keeping him off the front lines, he remains relatively safe. By keeping him in a special operations role, he can still have some effect on the war. It's worked pretty well for me so far, since I avoid future tech roleplays and anything outside of the modern-tech genre. The lack of uber armor, demons, vampires, or anything outside of stuff you can walk outside and see or expeirence keeps the luck factor pretty believeable (i.e. turning your head away a second before the bullet meant for it grazes your forehead...), so long as it doesn't happen constantly.

I believe it's when we try to cross-genre and plan poorly or improvise poorly that we resort to godmodding to save characters important to us, and piss off the people we roleplay with.

As people may be able to tell from my RPing so far, the YellowGuard of History lovers are inspiring to soldiers under them, very powerful, but nowhere near invincible. They are more advanced than the rest of History lovers, they have more advanced armor and weapons technology, and many other similar things. However, as I will soon prove through RPing, they are not invincible.

Later on, I will have a much smaller amount of people, with hero qualities, who are very powerful and hard-to-kill.

Jesus christ, I set this thing loose just hoping to hear a few opinions, and now we're defining the essence of the hero IRL, on NS, and dealing with Geico? No one can mess with Geico!

Back on topic, my final two cents is that the Hero for me is not always the person who is the brave, fearless man who turns back as his fellow soldiers retreat, just so he could possibly, possibly gain a second or two to keep running.

Most likely, that same man is afraid, scared to death actually, doesn't want to die, and isn't the kind of person you would expect to take a bullet for someone else. This same man is just maybe just 20 years old, on the brink of life, and thinks they still have so much to live for.

But he turns around. No matter his emotions, his better judgement telling him to keep running, his own fellow soldiers waving him on, he still turns. As he raises his rifle, two rounds catch him in the chest. He falls to the ground, and is trampled beneath the enemy's feet as they race forward to get the rest of his squad mates.

That's war. There is no beauty or elegance to it. That right there is war, in its purest form. But the man is still a hero. Not because of his actions: he died anyway, and did nothing to save his fellow soldiers. He was a hero because in that last second of his life, in that final jump between thought and action, he took his preconceptions that he was going to live and threw them away. Soldiers always go to war thinking they are going to come home fine. Who would think any other way? This man knew for a fact that he was going to die. That is terrifying. Think of it: if you knew you were going to die at a certain place at a certain time, and there's nothing really in your power to stop it, what would you do? This man turned and faced death, knowing just what was going to happen.

He's still a hero. Not because of his actions, but because his beliefs. He sacrificed himself, but it was still for naught: his own soldiers were still captured, killed, or went missing. His turning around did nothing.

But his comrades that survived will still tell the story of the young man who was afraid of death more than anything else in the world. The man who, for some reason, thought he would make it home unchanged. That same man turned around and faced that which he feared most. He still died, but he died in acceptance rather than unwillingly.

I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense, but sometimes, it's as much to be a hero to your own self (as stupid and cliche as that sounds) than it is to be one to those around you. In war, this happens all the time: someone doing something they wouldn't in a million years, and knowing exactly what was going to happen to them.

If anyone is really into the subject of what makes a true war hero, or a war story for that matter, I suggest you pick up the book The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien. He's an American author who fought as an infantryman in the Vietnam War, and the points he makes are just as simple as they are confusing. If you ever get the chance, pick up that book and read it. You'll take on a whole new perspective of what war really is.

who had never lost a single battle in his career.

That is untrue. Operation Mars, a late 1942 offensive aimed at breaching Army Group Centre and which he conducted, was a costly failure that resulted in perhaps a half a million Soviet casualties.

*bump*

Another trait heroes have that I think none of you have touched on is luck. Without it, that critical little nuance of your master battle plan is useless because the enemy tacked an extra tank platoon onto his force, or chose to take a different route to his objective. Guys who charge face-first into machine-gun fire and come out unscathed are lucky.

Er... not in my opinion. Luck just helps to determine if said hero survives his heroic act but you can be a hero without it, you're just more likely to be a dead hero. Personally I don't have many heroes in Iuthia, instead making and killing them off like you may see in dramas like Band of Brothers, but thats my own personal preference, my long term character are not people who fight wars, but instead leaders and diplomats.

Additionally, I agree that a hero can (and often is) be someone who fears death and knows he's likely to die but does his (or her) duty anyways. On the other hand a hero can just be the kind of guy who just does the right thing at the right time... they may not even think about it and their brain just runs on auto as they give someone who just collapsed on the streat CPR.

But sticking to the subject, I don't mind people using powerful characters in the middle of a battle leading the charge or whatever; Nationstates is still like a interactive fictional story and stories have their 'heroes' who save the day by taking out the super tank on their own or leads the squad into a unlikely victory... just as long as it's not abused. Being a interactive story, often in competition with one another these plot devices need to be balanced carefully as often both sides concider themselves to be the 'good-guys'. So moderation is advised and in some respects co-operation is all important in conflicts so you can both advance your plot without getting into arguements.

If anyone is really into the subject of what makes a true war hero, or a war story for that matter, I suggest you pick up the book The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien. He's an American author who fought as an infantryman in the Vietnam War, and the points he makes are just as simple as they are confusing. If you ever get the chance, pick up that book and read it. You'll take on a whole new perspective of what war really is.

A very good book, which I also reccommend.

Who was it who said that a good soldier is one who has accepted that he isn't going to come home?

Now, I like using my premade character heroes, but sometimes the most compelling hero is the last man holding the line against an advancing wave of tanks an infantry, armed with a rifle, low on ammo, hope, and with reinforcements "En route, ETA: ???" That's how I got Iron Mike, he led a plattoon of ragtag elements from a shattered battalion , freed several trapped armor divisions, and, to top it all off, attached himself to an enemy ship, and detonated a jury rigged thermonuclear device. BY HAND. Yes, he survived, with exactly one arm, a head, and a torso.

That sounds an awful lot like a Ringo character from the Legacy of the Aldanta =)

But let me put my two cents in about RP ettiquite and story telling.

It is totally valid for one person to ask another not to kill one of their characters. And, when it comes to standard risks like random machinegunfire and sniper fire and landmines and such, the character should come through.

And even though alive doesn't mean in one peice, it's totally possible to have a character who emerges totally unscathed from an explosion... these things happen. Unlikely, but possible. So long as that person is SPECIAL.

And even then the player controling that character needs to play reasonably. There needs to be an element of trust. "I won't kill that character if you don't make me kill him." If your character finds himself holed up in a dugout with a platoon of infantry outside yelling at him to surrender... if you want the character to live, have him surrender, or run away. I will NOT accept a single person eliminating an entire platoon like that. And I will promise to give him chances to escape, or trade him back after the war is over. But I'm only willing to give those chances if he doesn't grimly pick up his pistol and charge into the fire of the platoon. He does that, the LEAST that will happen is he wakes up in a field hospital.


Edit: To add in an Exalted reference, your heroes do NOT have Flow Like Blood or Avoidence Kata. Perhaps Seven Shadow Evasion and some levels of Ox Body, but that's IT!

Edit edit: I take it back, they do have Avoidence Kata. "This RP sucks... I'm not here.

You are bringing in the concept of "good" and "bad." To one person, Malcom X might be a hero for fighting for his cause and to another person he might be a villian who condoned violence. (Note: I am trying to avoid Godwin's law here)

No, actually I'm not. There's nothing heroic about killing a lot of people when you have superior forces, superior tactics and a superior position, as Caesar did. You might be called a great General for such an operation, but really you just got all the right stuff together and ran things off by the numbers. Understanding proper tactics makes you intelligent, but there's nothing unique about it.

Likewise, there's nothing heroic about simply being very good at killing people, and people who are very good at killing people tend to not be particularly fussy about who those people happen to be.

Also, you realise deliberately invoking Godwin's Law always fails? It's part of the 'rules.'

You are confusing the meaning of a hero in the real world (someone people look up to as an example and admire for highly virtuous traits) and a hero in the NS and gaming sense (someone with incredible or unique skills).

But that's not what a hero should be in NS. A hero should be what a hero is in real life, not a special guy who can carry around an infinite number of C4 charges that can somehow blow up entire buildings and soak up multiple battleship rounds and have arbitary invisibility when not attacking.

The idea that a 'hero' should be somehow better just because he is a hero is silly: in real life, people perform heroic actions because they rise to meet a situation, not because you paid an extra thousand bucks to build them and that's just what they do.

Also, there's nothing 'unique' about being a remorseless assassin or an incredible strategist or any of the other things some people try to tack 'hero' onto. You can't call them unique while simultaneously arguing they're so common you can claim this is how the term is used 'in an NS and gaming sense.'

We are also not equating our heros that are skilled military or spy personnel to Lex Luther, no soul, type people.

Actually, Lex Luthor has a soul and a motive. He's actually one of Superman's more interesting enemies. Why? Because he has no super powers. He's a guy with a lot of resources and a lot of cunning and the motivation to use those things. He's not just some guy who's a villian because he got Villian Superpowers and decided he should probably use them for evil.

Similarly, who's the best enemy Spider-Man has ever faced? Hands down, it's Venom. Why? Because under the badass suit he's human. Would Magneto be interesting without having a justifiable reason for hating humanity?

From here:

http://fullcircle.comicgenesis.com/characterdevelopment.htm#alignment

Generally, a "good" person will not kill unless in self defense, and even then they feel bad about it. They'll want to do the right thing, even if they're not at all sure what the right thing is. They mean well, but they are not flawless. No one is flawless. Even Superman needed kryptonite. No one is perfect nor should fictional characters be. Invincibility is boring and it negates the possibility of conflict and growth. From pet-peeves to deep seeded phobias, a "hero" should be a complete person, with hopes, fears, weaknesses, and convictions.

Seeing as how a villain is so very important they must be well rounded, thought out, and above all interesting. I've found myself adoring villains in some stories and movies far more than I cared for the heroes. We should be able to love to hate them, or adore them despite ourselves. When we can do that, then we know we've got a great stinker on our hands or a truly admirable mastermind.

A villain must must have a motive. They need to have a reason behind their wicked deeds. They must have a personality, something beyond just evil cackling and witty come-backs. Like any other person, they have fears, desires, hopes, dreams ... and of course weaknesses.

Notice I put flaws first here. Both in writing and roleplaying, a common mistake is having the merits outweigh the flaws. Everyone has good things about them, talents and skills, and this is an important part of any character, but what makes readers relate to them are the flaws and weaknesses.

People can't relate to perfection. In fact, "perfect" characters tend to irritate most people. So unless that's what you're going for, it's best to take balance into consideration. For example, which X-Man is more popular? Cyclops "Mr. Perfect" or Wolverine with the attitude problem? Most people are more fond of Wolverine because his temperment make him more interesting and easier to relate to.

He fails to mention Gambit, but nobody's perfect. :D

However, if someone does want to make a ruthless character with no heart or sense of morality, that is completely realistic and his choice to do so (try to tell me that cruel people don't exist in the world...). Just because you don't find him interesting as a character, doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to exist.

But such people don't exist. There's nobody in the world that never had a single redeeming feature or trace of humanity. Hitler? Hitler hated paperwork and was afraid of heights. He had a couple of pet dogs, and painted with watercolours. Cruel people most certainly do exist, but even the worst among them still aren't the vanilla remorseless assassin. They eat. They sleep. They listen to music and laugh and cry and do everything else the vanilla remorseless assassin never hints at. If you cut away everything that makes a person a person, you're just left with someone who's evil or good because that's his job in the story.

Characters who are remorseless, heartless and ruthless are boring because you can't relate to them, just as characters who always do exactly the right thing are boring. Real people have flaws, and unless your characters have flaws and motivations, they don't come off as real people. That's fine if they aren't; it worked well in the two Terminator movies [yes, two, there is no third Terminator movie] because the remorseless killers were machines, but it's simply not believable for a human character.

Furthermore, you can guarantee a dozen other people have already got such a character, so how is yours any different? How can you argue that your version of the guy from Hitman is remotely interesting when everyone who's played Hitman has seen him already and there's a dozen other characters like him out there? What makes him unique? What makes him your character instead of an off-the-shelf stereotype? If he's another remorseless killer with a heart of ice, nothing whatsoever. It's the quirks that make them interesting, and your example has none.

That is untrue. Operation Mars, a late 1942 offensive aimed at breaching Army Group Centre and which he conducted, was a costly failure that resulted in perhaps a half a million Soviet casualties.

Ah Maskirovka in its best form. Should you not have known, it means Masquerade. In military terms; Make a fake attack to draw your enemy away from your real objective.

Operation Mars was never meant to breach the lines of Army Group Centre, these are goals that this army could never reach with the limited equipment(mechanized) they received.
the NKVD used a double agent by the name of Alexander Demyanov to provide the Germans with information about an offensive in the Rhzev area. It began before the offensive in the South and had only one goal: to keep the German reserves pinned down(40% of all German divisions were positioned in the Centre area) while some 50 divisions, of which many from satelite states, were overwhelmed by a second offensive near Stalingrad, the element of surprise was achieved, and the Stalingrad was encircled.
Once the strategic goal was achieved, holding 79 divisions in this region and making the OKH to reinforce its positions there, he ordered to stop the Mars operation. It was at best, a stalemate, not a defeat.

edit; adding:

At first glance it was at least a tactical success for the German troops. But we should mention, that for achieving of that insignificant success the German Command was forced to use the enormous reserves which were vitally necessary at the South flank of the frontline. This is especially so in the case of the tank formations. It's true that the total amount of tanks utilized by both sides was approximately equal, but taking into account the total tank ratio (5080 German tanks vis. 7350 Soviet ones) such situation acted in the Soviet commands favour. And the main feature- the German belt roads were much worse than Soviet ones, so the Soviet reserves from the Western Front zone were redeployed nearby Stalingrad as early as in the middle of December, while the German ones - only in January - February.

So, while it achieved the tactical success (rather small), the German Command lost strategicly. Having the mean ratio between the Soviet and German troops as great as 1.3 : 1, the Soviet Command drew the opponent into the insignificant battle of the equal forces, i.g. it got the better ratio in the main direction - Stalingrad. Besides, the Soviet Command created the better conditions for themselves for reserve manoeuvring and won a tempo, taking the lead over the Germans by a 1-1.5 months. And on the other hand it forced the German Command to use its tank formations in a defense that also can be considered to be a significant success.

The German Command realised that the Soviets had played a trick with them too late. In the end of February, the Commander of the 9th German Army - General Model was ordered to abandon the Rzhev Salient to reduce the frontline, but it was too late.
Zhukov met his goal, keeping the Germans busy, so he won.

That sounds an awful lot like a Ringo character from the Legacy of the Aldanta =)

But let me put my two cents in about RP ettiquite and story telling.

It is totally valid for one person to ask another not to kill one of their characters. And, when it comes to standard risks like random machinegunfire and sniper fire and landmines and such, the character should come through.

And even though alive doesn't mean in one peice, it's totally possible to have a character who emerges totally unscathed from an explosion... these things happen. Unlikely, but possible. So long as that person is SPECIAL.

And even then the player controling that character needs to play reasonably. There needs to be an element of trust. "I won't kill that character if you don't make me kill him." If your character finds himself holed up in a dugout with a platoon of infantry outside yelling at him to surrender... if you want the character to live, have him surrender, or run away. I will NOT accept a single person eliminating an entire platoon like that. And I will promise to give him chances to escape, or trade him back after the war is over. But I'm only willing to give those chances if he doesn't grimly pick up his pistol and charge into the fire of the platoon. He does that, the LEAST that will happen is he wakes up in a field hospital.


Edit: To add in an Exalted reference, your heroes do NOT have Flow Like Blood or Avoidence Kata. Perhaps Seven Shadow Evasion and some levels of Ox Body, but that's IT!

Edit edit: I take it back, they do have Avoidence Kata. "This RP sucks... I'm not here.

It is indeed Mighty Mite, in essence. I incorporated the Posleen Wars into my nations history, and kept Mike(both of them) and Tommy. And Mike is more like the Epic "Unstoppable Juggernaut" than anything Exalted... MOST of my characters are like the Unstoppable Juggernaut... I need to work on that there.... Ringo and Weber have inspired ALOT of the things I use to be honest.

Now, back to being pertinient...

Heroes should generally be smarte than that. You're holed up in there, you rool out a hand grenade and THEN, after it's detonated, you come out to kill the remnants, using the explosion and the confusion to your advantage.

snip
Apologies for taking this topic off-track.

I’m afraid I simply cannot agree. To Operation Mars, Zhukov committed 1,400,000 men (compared with only 1,143,500 for Operation Uranus, the operation around Stalingrad) and 2,352 tanks (during Operation Mars the Soviets would lose 1,700 tanks, more then were committed to Operation Uranus). Glantz, who has written extensively on this battle, writes "to insure success the Stavka provided extraordinary armor, artillery, and engineer support for Zhukov's two attacking fronts. In fact, Zhukov's over 2,300 tanks and 10,000 guns and mortars exceeded the firepower the Stavka allocated to Vasilevsky to carry out Operation Uranus (around Stalingrad)." This does not sound at all like a mere diversionary tactic, but a major attempt to reduce the Rhzev salient.

This view is also shared by NK Popjel, member of the War Council in Katukov's formation in the Luchessa Valley (and later Lieutenant-General in the Red Army) in his memoirs.

The Soviets never accomplished their aims in this offensive, despite attempting up to 5 times to break the German defences. Glantz says, “the overall Soviet casualty toll, however, was at least 10-fold greater that the total German loss of around 40,000 men.” The Soviets did not achieve their ends (as outlined by Popjel) and furthermore they suffered terrible costs far worse then the Axis at Stalingrad, therefore I must respectfully disagree with you and say that Mars was a complete failure (which, nontheless, did help the Soviets to encircle Stalingrad).

Glantz's analysis of Zhukov's failure is illuminating: "in Western armies losses such as these would have prompted the removal of senior commanders, if not worse. In the Red Army it did not, for when all was said and done, Zhukov fought, and the Red Army needed fighters... Zhukov said little about the defeat on his memoirs, and what he did say was grossly distorted."

Ah Maskirovka in its best form. Should you not have known, it means Masquerade. In military terms; Make a fake attack to draw your enemy away from your real objective.


That's what the Soviets claimed was Targul Frumos, two years later. It's hard to believe them when in fact Mars claimed the lives of two hundred thousand Red Army personnel, and Targul Frumos was in fact one of the greatest debacles in the history of the Red Army - two rifle armies and a tank army defeated by a single division; it was Koniev's lowest point...no wonder they would want to claim it as a masquerade offensive.

Operation Mars was launched a full month before Operation Uranus was launched - well, not a full month, but while Mars was launched in October, Uranus was launched in November. So, there are indications that it wasn't merely to pin down German forces in Army Group Center, but it was to be a parallel counterstroke to Operation Uranus, and not only destroy Army Group South, but Army Group Center as well. In fact, Stalin's tendencies and orders during the winter of '41/'42 seem to indicate the same thing. He ordered wild offensives which were overly ambitious, and all in all failed.


Once the strategic goal was achieved, holding 79 divisions in this region and making the OKH to reinforce its positions there, he ordered to stop the Mars operation. It was at best, a stalemate, not a defeat.


A stalemate which ended in the deaths of two hundred Red Army personnel for an operation in which his ultimate strategic objective was never reached. His army was repulsed, he was forces to return to the original frontlines - that is a defeat; a stalemate would mean that neither side took the field; in the end, the Germans kept the field of battle. It was a tactical defeat for the Soviet Union.

That's what the Soviets claimed was Targul Frumos, two years later. It's hard to believe them when in fact Mars claimed the lives of two hundred thousand Red Army personnel, and Targul Frumos was in fact one of the greatest debacles in the history of the Red Army - two rifle armies and a tank army defeated by a single division; it was Koniev's lowest point...no wonder they would want to claim it as a masquerade offensive.

Operation Mars was launched a full month before Operation Uranus was launched - well, not a full month, but while Mars was launched in October, Uranus was launched in November. So, there are indications that it wasn't merely to pin down German forces in Army Group Center, but it was to be a parallel counterstroke to Operation Uranus, and not only destroy Army Group South, but Army Group Center as well. In fact, Stalin's tendencies and orders during the winter of '41/'42 seem to indicate the same thing. He ordered wild offensives which were overly ambitious, and all in all failed.
Seems strange, especially if you look at both the size and shape of Army group Center, It would have been impossible. And i'm not even a general. At best the Soviets could have made a deep penetration or a cut off of Rhzev, nothing more.


A stalemate which ended in the deaths of two hundred Red Army personnel for an operation in which his ultimate strategic objective was never reached. His army was repulsed, he was forces to return to the original frontlines - that is a defeat; a stalemate would mean that neither side took the field; in the end, the Germans kept the field of battle. It was a tactical defeat for the Soviet Union.
The Soviets did make progress, some 16km, although not much, it counts.
I still disagree, the objective was to keep Germans busy and they succeeded, It was not a defeat, it was a diversion from the real battle.

In the end, it's very hard for me to believe Soviet memoirs and agree that it was simply a diversion to Stalingrad, simply because the Soviets have used that excuse so many times before. Whilst intentions will be hard to decipher, I definately think that there was a goal beyond pinning down German troops, or else Zhukov and STAVKA would have not organized so many men for the offensive. Perhaps they expected a limited victory, much like Uranus was. Although Uranus did not destroy Army Group South, as proved in early '43, it did cut off a great chunk of Army Group South, and perhaps Zhukov was looking for similar results at the Rzhev. Because so much blood was wasted on 'pinning' down German positions, I really have doubts that it was a simple diversion. In fact, German army deployment patterns argued against any idea that Hitler would reinforce the 6th Army and the 4th Panzer Army from formations from that area, anyways. That said, most deployments were made to the Leningrad region.

a flanking maneuver would have been a better choice. or rather a pincer (IMHO)

a flanking maneuver would have been a better choice. or rather a pincer (IMHO)

For Mars? You have to achieve the breakthrough before you can pincer; a pincer and flank manuever is largely a tactical manuever, as opposed to a strategical manuever. There were several instances of the manuever being used during the battle, but its nigh impossible to complete it on a strateigical basis - especially when you take into consideration how the Germans deployed their defenses.