Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, captain america, Heroes, Jeff, Journal, Movie, Novel, Offringa, Pathfinder, Personal, Winter Soldier
It is not often these days that I unabashedly and without any reservations recommended a movie. Yet this is the case with Captain America: The Winter Soldier. For the first time in a long time, I was on the edge of my seat, not able (not even desiring too!) try and predict the ending, simply losing myself in the story and – honestly – wanting it to not be over.
I say this in dead honesty. Most with movies these days – even ones I enjoyed, such as Enders Game – I find myself checking my watch half way through, wondering how much time is left. Or, with movies that I dislike… I’m counting the minutes, wondering whether I should simply get up and walk out.
Not so with the new Cap movie, though. Nope; this time, I was looking at my watch to see how much time was left.
I could do more of a review, and talk about specific points, but that would involve lots of time, and necessitate starting a discussion of how the Mouse worked the plot lines from the movie and from Agents of Shield together into a seamless whole. It would also require me to get into a discussion about the political commentary within the movie, but to do that would require me to talk politics far more than I want to do here.
Nope. A review would take lots of time, and between what I’ve said here, and the commercials and trailers we’ve all seen by now, I’ll just say this: If you haven’t seen the movie yet, see it. It is the best of the super hero movies I’ve ever seen (better than Cap One, my former favorite, and far better than The Avengers), and is arguably the best movie I have seen in years.
What I will talk about, though, is why I like Captain America as a character – as a hero – so much, and the answer, as I said in my first review is simple: He’s a paladin. He fights not for fame or glory, or even to right great wrongs and defend the innocent. Nope – he fights for one simple reason: He hates bullies.
I’ve been thinking about this over the weekend as I again consider the nature of heroes in RPG quests. One of my players looked at me across the table last night and said, “I’ve been thinking about this: I’ve been wondering why my character is here.”
I looked back at him and said “I’ve been wondering the same thing.”
Now, a large part of the issue is tied up in the nature of the Paizo Adventure Path I’ve been running. In short, the players are traveling around the world, collecting pieces of an artifact that it would be very bad for the Forces Of Evil (TM) to get first. Or, put another way, it is a series of dungeon crawls linked only by the imposed requirement that the players are all members of an adventuring society called “The Pathfinders.”
In other words, as this player’s first character died a grizzly death some time back, and his new one is “finishing his brother’s quest,” he has little reason to keep adventuring. I mean, several parts of the artifact are in the hands of their superiors, so putting them all together actually makes it EASIER for the bad guys to acquire them all. Throw in that after finding the last piece (and some tough tomb raiding), they are all pretty wealthy, and it honestly make more sense for him to retire, open an inn, and stop risking his life. He’s not trying to save the world; it’s not even in danger. As I said, it can be argued that they are actually ENDANGERING the world by their actions.
So why keep going? He’s not a hero, but rather an adventurer. And realistically, he’d stop.
To me, this is a flaw in the adventure path. As I have lamented in this journal many times, it is my experience that most people don’t like to play heroes – aka selfless good guys like Captain America – but rather adventurers or mercenaries whose characters are only in it for the money. Now, as it has in the past, this still baffles me. As Thak said long ago in his video commentary on ADWD, heroes are STUPID. They die. But they die doing heroic things because they ARE heroes.
OTOH, as I said, an adventurer has little reason to keep adventuring after his first big tomb raid. In a world where the average person makes a couple gold peices a week, why would you keep adventuring when a good crawl can net a character hundreds or thousands of (or tens of thousands, depending on the size of the dungeon) gold peices? Heroes will. Adventurers may – to show their worth, or test their skills. But long term? Nope. It makes no sense.
As always, I will never understand this. I know that I can’t perform great feats of daring do in my everyday life; that is one huge reason why I role play. But to simply money grub, as so many people do? No thanks.
This is why I think the story is flawed. As I said, there is no reason for the PC’s to adventure together. This is the first flaw; I don’t like railroading PC’s like this. More so, there is no reason for them to keep together and stay adventuring.
What surprises me, though, is that the adventure writers don’t seem to realize this!?! Or am I wrong, my own personal experiences with too small a sample – and most people really DO like to play heroes?
I hope that that’s true. Yet… that saddens me even more, for what does that say of the small sample of people who I play with?
Sad Panda. 😦
Greetings Aromathians! Now that vacation season is over, updates should resume a more normal schedule. I had anticipated more frequent updates last month, but between my vacation, getting laid up with a foot injury, and the cosplay vacation of my faithful research mouse / assistant Yekcim (he mentioned something about dressing up as evil Mickey… the only differences between evil Mickey and normal Mickey are that evil Mickey has a beard. And is nice. And doesn’t try to brainwash little girls into twerking on stage. But I digress).
Anyway, as I said in my last post, I have a lot to talk about. I had planned on doing my normal post on GENCON, but… that was a month ago, so I’ll just say this: GENCON was BUSY this year; possibly the busiest I’ve ever seen. I played lots of Battletech, and one of my gaming buddies picked up the newest Monte Cook game, Numenera. We gave it a spin when we got back, and I think I really like it. I’m not sure when or if we’ll have time to play again, but the system is just different enough to be cool. And the story behind the world – and how the game turns so many fantasy tropes on their heads – is awesome. Recommended.
Saying that, another thought has come into my head over the summer: Why is it that games just don’t seem as fun to me as they used to? A good friend of mine and I discussed this on the way home from the con, and after much rumination, he made a point I haven’t forgot: “Games just don’t fire my imagination the way they used to.”
Huh. I really couldn’t disagree with him. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that my birthday was coming up a week or so after that conversation, or maybe it has more to do with the fact that it is getting harder and harder to find something truly new in a game.
I see this most often in Battletech. Now that I’m running a campaign, I find it harder to not simply look at a map, then at a set of units, and go “Eh, side X will probably win this in short order,” based on nothing more than the information provided.
I have often criticized another one of the guys I play battletech with for taking exactly this attitude. so I will say I feel more than a little hypocritical for saying that, yet it’s true. And yet… Yet it doesn’t take into account good tactics, or smart play, or just plain luck.
Let me illustrate via an example from last night’s Pathfinder session, and before I start, let me say that this event reminded me of why I play games, and RPG’s more specifically. Sure, there was some luck involved, but it also had to do with good planning, tactics, and teamwork.
In this campaign, we have been tracking an NPC who, through various ways, is linked to all four party members for plot purposes. (In my case, she is supposed to be my character’s foster mother). Eventually, we track the her to the Big Bad in his lair, and it appears as it we have arrived just in time. Yet, before my brave paladin could offer a challenge beyond “Give her to us!” The big bad pulls out a dagger, stabs her in the head…. and she dies.
Now, of course, the fight is on. I look at the Game Master and say “Dude, you’ve gotta let me pull this off because of the cool factor. I wanna run, leap up on the table, and swing for the fences with my warhammer!”
He laughed and said, “Sure, I’ll let you do it if you make the acrobatics check.” Of course, my paladin has no skill in acrobatics. He’s big and hulking; not the most nimble of guys. So when I rolled an eleven with no modifiers, I figured it was a fail.
Nope. I pulled it off! I charged twenty feet across the room, leaped up on the table and drawing my warhammer as I run….
And then miss. Yeah, it looked pretty grim for me. I turned to my party members, and said “Well, I may die, but it’s in character. Just the way I imagine him going out.”
It really didn’t look good for me – especially after the big bad laughs at me and tags me for 36 of my 39 hit points. At that point, I figured I was dead, so…. I swung for the fences again next round (I did have initiative on the other minions in the room, thankfully)
*rolls dice*
NATURAL TWENTY!
Huh. Potential crit!
Oh, did I mention that my paladin has his first five levels as a caster (Magus, FYI), and so I can channel spells into my hammer? Yeah, if I confirm the crit, it’s not just the hammer blow, it’s also five die six of electricity damage.
*rolls dice*
MISS! Oh, no! But it’s not over. The party’s rouge drops down a plot point card, playing it on me. Automatically confirm a crit! Hoody-hoo! That’s a lot of dice to roll…..
Suffice it to say, after all was said and done (and skipping some more mechanics) I did 89 points of damage back to the Big Bad. Suddenly, instead of being DED dead, I might live through this. A slim change, but…
No, the big bad wasn’t dead, but she was bloody close. So when the party’s cleric goes and hits her with a small area of effect spell, those 11 points finished her off.
Cue sad look on the GM’s face.
Now, could I have anticipated that? No way – especially when you consider that I’ve had both in and out of game issues with the guy playing the rouge. But… whatever the reason, I had my heroic moment.
In game terms, yeah… lots of dice rolling. But in story terms? Imagine a calm and collected paladin losing his cool as he watches his mother die. He screams, leaps, and swings for the fences, only to miss. His opponent taunts him, then swings twice – lightning fast – and nearly kills the heroic paladin. Our hero then turns, spits out his own blood, and says “You will pay for what you just did!” and then, with a mighty uppercut swing, knocks the big bad so hard that the finished blow of his cleric ally finishes him off.
Sounds a lot cooler, doesn’t it? Almost, dare I say it, inspiring.
To wrap this up, I’ll just say that the NPC wasn’t dead (I really hate illusions 🙂 ), and that we all lived through the fight, thanks to that hit, and a later crit I had on her trollish henchman, but it was tooth and nail for the whole fight. And when we were done, I could look over the battle map, and the tipped over minis, and think that, for just few minutes,
I am a hero.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, Heroes, Jeff, Journal, Novel, Offringa, Personal, Superman
To start this post, let me say again that I’ve never been a huge fan of Superman, and for reasons I’ve stated here many times before. In short, though, it basically comes down to the fact that he’s well, too super. He’s super fast, can fly, is invulnerable, super strong… All this means that there is nothing that can truly challenge him, outside of kryptonite and his own infatuation with women who have the same first and last initial.
So, no, this isn’t a review of the movie Man of Steel for the simple reason that I haven’t seen it. I may get around to it when it moves on to the cheap theater, but right now, I’ve heard enough about it to know that I have even less desire to see it than I do Ironman 3 (although my lack of interest in that movie comes from a very different set of reasons.)
Man of Steel is a very different breed of movie from the original two movies I half-remember seeing as a kid. In this movie, it’s all about him being Superman. Flying around, breaking heads, taking names, and most strangely, racking up a HUGE body count. Heck, even Lois figures out in ten minutes who he is (Well, OK – that one makes sense. She is supposed to be a prize-winning journalist.)
This, to me, isn’t Superman. Well, OK, maybe it is, but it takes exactly the wrong approach to making the character interesting. To make this argument, I’ll cite an argument that one of my friends made in response to a post I made on Facebook. Superman, he reminded me, is an inherently uninteresting character , for the reasons I listed above. Instead, good Superman movies are not really about Superman, but are about Clark Kent.
Clark Kent? Really? But follow his logic: Kent is everyman. He has flaws and weaknesses, points where drama can really occur: his dogged pursuit of first Lana Lang, then Lois Lane (what is it about the DC universe and characters who have the same first and last initial, anyway?). He doesn’t automatically succeed as a reporter, and has the daily difficulty of being super-human, but trying to keep that fact a secret, even while feeling absolutely compelled to be all-paladin, all the time.
In a nutshell, this is why I have no desire to see the new movie. Unlike earlier successful versions of Superman – specifically Superman One & Two, but also other versions such as Smallville, and even the campy early nineties Lois and Clark – this movie appears to be a movie about Superman being Superman.
Yawn. Watching him fly around and beat the crap out of things is fun for a while, but gets boring pretty quickly, IMHO.
OTOH, partly because of the comment on Facebook I cited earlier, I’ve started watching Smallville. I never really got into the show when it was on (IIRC, I was busy on those nights and forgot to tape it in those pre-DVR days), but I did see a few episodes, and liked what I saw. I mentioned this to one of my role-playing friends last night, and she agreed with me – yes, it eventually jumped the shark, but the early seasons, especially the first couple seasons – are really good.
Why is that? Simple – it’s a show about Clark Kent, not Superman. Or, put another way, despite the fact that it seems to be pretty “monster-of-the-weekish,” there is drama. The drama comes not in watching Clark beat the crap out of whatever meteor-shower induced super villain he’s facing this week, but in the human side of it: Does he finally work up the guts to ask out Lana? Will his parents lose the farm, or will his Dad swallow his pride and take some help from Lex? (who isn’t a villain yet early in the season – something I love!) And, most interestingly in many ways, what piece of fatherly advice will Mr. Kent pound into Clark’s head this week?
Is it great drama, or even great television? No, not really, if I have to admit it. But it’s far more interesting than watching Supes pound Zod into the ground, for the simple fact that Clark can fail. Consider: while you know he’ll defeat the monster, it’s far more interesting to watch him swing and miss with Lana yet again, or deal with a power he can’t control because he’s never had it before, and hasn’t mastered it’s use yet.
I feel rather strange in writing this, seeing as how I’ve advocated many times the hero who sees things in black and white and punishes evil with a vengeance. OTOH, though, there are many other heroes who do the same thing, but with far more drama, and others who I would consider Paladin’s as well – most strikingly Captain America. Cap, unlike Supes, can fail. Sure, he wins, but not without losses, and unlike Supes, it’s his shield that’s invulnerable, not him.’
Seems that Superheroes, as with player characters, the fear of death goes a long way towards instilling real drama.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, Heroes, Jeff, Journal, Novel, Offringa, Personal, RPG
Recently I have come to what is for me a disturbing conclusion: I am too much of a hero.
No, I don’t mean that I am able and/ or willing to strap on a cape and take out some bad guys, or even walk a post with my fellow soldiers in some foreign land. Rather, I am referring to fantasy games.
Let me elaborate: I am the person who always plays the knight in shining armor. I enjoy playing paladins; I’m the guy who revels in having “The Gandalf moment,” where I say “Get behind me and I will protect you – and you villains? Thus far and no farther! ”
I am well aware of this fact, as are the people I play with. Too me, this is a strength. I won’t leave a party member behind. I enjoy the situation where my character is facing seemingly impossible odds, being the guy who saves the party – or, even better, the damsel. I enjoy playing the guy who picks up his sword, straps on his shield, and kicks some evil ass.
Yet I’m finding that in that, I’m pretty unusual. Odd, isn’t it?
I thought so. But it’s not, at least my role playing experience. Most people would rather play the amoral mercenary, or the “dark hero.” You know, that guy, as my GM put it, “who is willing to do those things that other people know needs to be done, but aren’t willing to do.” Or, put another way, Batman.
Sigh. My feelings on Batman have been well documented in this journal, but I must say, I just don’t get that. I don’t understand the attraction of that character. Sure, I understand the necessity of that type of hero. I can appreciate Batman, and I also understand why people would even want to play that character. But as a primary archetype? As the default that most people want to play? That I don’t get.
This is on my mind because it has become a problem in the Pathfinder campaign I am currently playing in. I am playing my normal stalwart hero, and the rest of the party… are doing what they normally do. Various slides along the alignment scale from chaotic good to neutral evil, co-operating for mutual benefit at best, not to be heroes.
That isn’t what is really bothering me, though. I can deal with people who are in the game for different reasons. What I’m struggling with is that no one else seems to think the same way as I do – at all. My fellow party members seemingly would rather adventure with one character who is not a hero, but a con artist (at best),whose actions often benefit only himself at the expense of the party, and I am at a loss to understand this situation – especially when he is embraced and I am shunned.
The only logical conclusion is that I am too much of a hero.
I see this in other aspects of fantasy and spec fic all the time as well. This is why we like Wolverine – he’s “dark and full of angst.” This is why the writers of the New Jedi Order novels have the Jedi fall to the dark side all the time – and then come back. We want heroes who are “human.”
Hrmmmm. Doesn’t that beg the question, then, of whether these guys are even heroes at all? Sure, maybe I am a little hypocritical at times (I like Wolverine too!), but think about it: Who would you rather have in front of you? The guy you can count on to do the right thing because it IS the right thing, or the guy who is standing in front of you because you’re paying him too? Seems like a simple answer to me!
I am reminded of a post I made here several years back, one where I cited a letter to the editor of “Knights of the Dinner Table” magazine. In brief, the letter writer was objecting to the point a previous letter writer had made that a person can only be a good role player when they’ve played an evil character. I agreed whole heartedly with that soldier’s response, and I feel the same way now: There is evil in the world. I may not have seen it in the same way as a career army non-com, but I have seen it. I don’t want to be that evil, even in a game. I want to fight it, not enable it, and it is my hope that people feel the same way, even though my eyes tell me that people would rather screw over their fellow man for…. what?
Evil is in the world, and while I may not be able to strap on my sword and fight it in real life, I want to do so in a game. And if that makes me too much a hero, well, then maybe it’s time for me to hang up my dice and take up knitting.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, Batman, Heroes, Jeff, Journal, Novel, Offringa, Personal, Super Powers
The other day I found myself in what for me has become an increasingly rare thing to do: defending Batman. Or, for those of you who read my rants on the Batman movies last summer, I was actually sticking up for the Caped Crusader and maintaining that he is indeed a superhero.
Let me elaborate. Several students came into a last hour class one day last week, and two girls were arguing with a one of the guys that “Batman can’t be a superhero since he doesn’t have a super power.” Admittedly, I was intrigued. First, I have to admit – any chance I can get to look cool in front of students is nice. Secondly, though, was the nature of the argument.
So I jumped in and helped a brother out, so to speak. “Batman doesn’t need a superpower. He has money and lots of cool toys,” I replied.
“That doesn’t make him a superhero. It just makes him rich and crazy!”
“No, that makes him a vigilante,” I said. “You don’t need powers to be a superhero.”
“Well, then what makes him a superhero?”
“Simple,” I replied. “What makes him a superhero is his willingness to put on the mask and cape and do what others are either unable or unwilling to do.” Sadly, at the point the bell rang and I had to end the conversation with a high five from the poor guy, but my point had been made, and the two girls looked more confused than ever.
This conversation came back to me earlier this weekend when I saw the first trailer for a movie I’ve been waiting a long time for – Kickass 2. This is one movie that I’ve wished a long time for a sequel for, and now it looks to be the only movie I’m really looking forward to this summer (Trek 2 being a Spring movie, IMHO). For those of you who don’t remember my post on it many, many moons ago, I used that movie (a most excellent movie if you can get past the violence and language) to launch into a discussion on what makes a hero, and I said the same thing then that I’ve said earlier. Heroes aren’t made into heroes by their powers or abilities. They’re made heroes by their willingness to be a hero.
In the current Pathfinder campaign I’m playing in, one of the characters is a very amoral thief. He’s so amoral that he’s annoying the GM, who when he asked the player what his motivation was, the player replied “money.”
Huh. Then why are you adventuring to save the world? Last I checked, heroes aren’t in it for the money, but to make the world a better place.
This is why, despite my fundamental differences with Chris Nolan over his version of Batman, I still say he is a hero. Yes, he does sometime have some “anger management issues,” and (especially in Nolan’s version) he can skew too much toward law over good, but he still does what the rest of us can’t do, or won’t do.
I’ve touched on this theme many times, but it bears repeating. Are costumed vigilantes real (or at least common)? No. But heroes are. Heroes are those men and women who strap on a uniform and a rifle, leave home and family behind, and walk a patrol in Afghanistan. Heroes are the firefighter rushing into the burning building, or the cop who gets into a shootout with a crazed gunman in some back alley. They do not what we necessarily can’t do, but we won’t do – for whatever our reasons might be.
Maybe that sounds trite. If it does, so be it. It doesn’t change the truth of the statement. We can – and should – question the methods of our heroes, even the everyday ones. Just as Batman believes the end doesn’t always justify the means, so is that true of our every day heroes. But never let us think that they aren’t heroes.
One of my best friends is a career military officer. Most days he’s just like you and I. Likes to read fantasy and sci fi. Argues about Hobbits and Goblins, and whether the movie is a good version of the book. Watches lots and lots of Anime. Likes U2 and Johnny Cash. Yet he puts on his M-16 every day when he’s overseas, keeping us safe.
I hadn’t intended to take this post to this point when I started; funny how things work out this way. So I’ll just say yes, while Batman is a character who I sometimes disagree with, he is a hero, and I’ll still watch his adventures on the big screen, all the while being thankful for the real heroes of this world.
May they be safe in all they do.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: anti-hero, Aromathus, Character Creation, Heroes, Jeff, Journal, mercenary, Novel, Offringa, Personal, RPG
Well Aromathians, last week I talked about RPG character creation from the point of integrating the various classes – or roles, if you prefer. This week, though, I move on to a more touchy subject. I’ve talked about this before, but not as specifically as today. Even so, if some of this seems “old hat,” well, I apologize.
I’ve expounded at length and at many points on my view of what a hero is. I’ve also expounded more than once on the fact that I prefer to role-play heroes, not anti-heroes, and certainly not villains. Now, this is true because of my own beliefs, and I’m aware that not everyone out there feels the same. That, I suppose, is your right. I will admit that there is a certain attraction to role playing the anti-hero, or the villain. Or, more to my point today, the mercenary hero.
I just don’t see the point.
This isn’t from any particular personal problem with the mercenary hero. It’s just that, well… Generally speaking, those types of people “don’t play well with others.” Now, in my almost twenty years now of role playing, I’ve played with many different people in several different groups. Most of those experiences have been good, a few not so much. Yet the older I get, the more I notice that most people seem to have one thing in common: They like to play the “mercenary hero,” despite what I’ve just said is their basic flaw – to the point that I’ve even started to take that fact into account when I design my own characters, making them survivable by themselves. After all, if you can’t count on your own party members…
I’ll admit it: that bugs me. As I’ve said before, heroes are those selfless people who strap on their sword or spell pouch and go off to fight evil. By definition, they are selfless. Yet it seems that person after person I play with doesn’t seem to feel the same way. As a GM, I have to motivate my players by either 1) having my villains do things that bother the players personally, such as kidnapping kids when the players are young parents, or, more commonly 2) paying them.
This bothers me even more. I mean, after all, isn’t the point of the game to play a hero? Last time I checked it is! Yet time after time, other players look across the table at me as if I’m so kind of idiot when I say “I’ll protect this person! No payment is required! It’s the right thing to do!”
OK, so maybe I’m over stating my point by just a little bit. OTOH, doesn’t invalidate the point, and to demonstrate, I’ll ask a question: Why would a mercenary adventure? Right – to make money. Yet therein is the problem. Money might make you start to adventure, but would it keep you adventuring? Consider the person who says to his companions “I’m only in this for the money.” What does that mean? Simple: the pay better be pretty darn good, or when the going gets tough, he’s outta there.
Think about it: You’ve just accepted a quest to defeat a tribe of orcs who are pillaging local trade caravans. Everything is going great until you discover that the orcs are just bait to cover up the fact that an evil ______ has other plans. Suddenly, I’m not getting paid enough to do “X,” and I’m outta there. As Thakk would say, being a hero is stupid. It gets you killed.
That’s right. Your average mercenary wouldn’t make a good hero. Money’s great and all, but as for me, I’d rather be alive to spend that money. Sure, he might take a job for money, but saving the world? Yeah, that’s right. Just ask Han Solo: it doesn’t pay well.
And therein lies the problem: to go on a world saving quest, you need true heroes. Yet for whatever reason, most people don’t want to play them. That begs the question of why?,
To be honest, a great many of those people tell me that “they don’t want to be tied down,” or, put another way, they want the ability to tell the party to “go hang” if they don’t like what’s going on.
All right, I’m being blunt to make my point, but again, that doesn’t invalidate the observation. Why do people want to play evil – or even neutral – characters? Isn’t the goal of the game to play a hero?
Yet that is beside my point, isn’t it? It’s not why people play non-heroic characters, but simply that they do. Consider briefly, a party made up of anti-heroes and neutral characters, all in it for the money. What would they do? Would they save the world? Or, more to the point, could you count on them? Not really.
Think about it: When the going gets tough, the tough get going. And not toward the enemy – and certainly not on a quest to save the world.
So, let’s bring this back around to neutral and / or mercenary heroes. Would they adventure? No. Do they make good party members? Again, no. You can’t count on them. A hero stands in the gap, saying “None shall pass.” A mercenary, not good character says “Is is in my best interest to stand in this gap? And, if I do, is it in my best interest to fight?” The neutral character says “Is the balance served by my standing in this gap?”
That’s right: Neither of these make good heroes because they aren’t. Now, in a home-brewed campaign, this might work. But in a pre-genned campaign such as those published by Paizo? Not so much. They simply wouldn’t be out to save the world.
So why do so many people play these characters? I honestly don’t know. I don’t understand the attraction of playing a “hero” who isn’t a hero. But maybe that’s just me. After all, YMMV.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, Heroes, jedi, Jeff, Journal, Novel, Offringa, Personal, Star Wars
One of the things that is frustrating me most as I read through the New Jedi Order series of novels is the fact that most of the Jedi seem to be, well, wussies.
Seriously. These Jedi spend a large amount of their time sitting around philosophizing. In fact, the novel I read most recently, “Traitor,” is almost exclusively devoted to the inner turmoil of one Jacen Solo, Luke’s nephew and Han and Leia’s son. He spends the majority of his time whining, complaining that if he acts with any amount of force, he’s turning to the dark side. “Fight the bad guys! Unh-uh! Can’t do that! That’s aggression! That’s the dark side! I’ll go sit here and pout!” In fact, he gives up use of the force altogether for a while, only accepting the fact that he’s a Jedi when the Bad Guys capture his Mother and make him watch while they torture her.
Now, if you’re wont to read negative reviews on Amazon first, as I am (the better to ignore the fan boys), you’ll notice something about the New Jedi Order book reviews: I’m not the only person who feels this way. The post-movie Jedi, at least as written in the EU, spend too much time whining, contemplating how any aggressive action might make them go dark, and, in the case of Jacen and his sister Jaina, actually doing it.
This thought has been both puzzling and irritating me more and more as I read through the books. After all, the Jedi are, to me, at least, Paladins. Shining examples of purity and goodness, they do what is Right because it is Right. Paladins know what to do – and why they do it. Yet, as I’ve said, the Jedi seem increasingly unable to act at all in the EU novels.
Then I had a conversation with a couple of people that I play RPG’s with, and their comments seemed especially prescient. First, one of my newer gaming friends pointed out that many people (unlike me) don’t like their hero’s pure. They like having the protagonist of the story straddle the line between good and evil, getting all “angtsy” and effectively “going gray.”
As I look at it, this explains a lot. Yes, many of us, myself included, like the reluctant hero – Han Solo, for example. Yet there is a basic flaw with this line of thinking, for Jedi aren’t reluctant heroes. They’re paladins. They strap on their robes, pick up their lightsabers, and march off to fight evil (well, the Sith at least).
The conversation then moved on, and the gentleman who GM’s my Star Wars campaign made another interesting comment in response to what I said. “That’s why the novel writers have all the jedi ‘go dark’ for a while. But that’s the problem. The Dark Side isn’t something you flirt with, or stick your toe in for a while to ‘try it out.’ It’s something you dive into with your whole being and embrace.”
I couldn’t have said it better if I tried, Gary 🙂
These two thoughts have focused me in on what I’ve come to realize as the core flaw of the Jedi philosophy: The Jedi don’t believe in anger, or emotion at all, for that matter. Remember Yoda’s mantra: “Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to Suffering!” Or, another example, to quote from the Jedi Code: “There is no emotion; there is peace.”
Hrm. That’s why, in a nutshell, I’m increasingly becoming a Sith. Not because I’m evil, or want to oppress others, but for the simple fact that the Sith realize emotions, and emotional attachments, aren’t evil.
Consider: If you have no emotion, you have no anger. But you also have no love, no passion. True, you don’t embrace the dark side of existence, but you don’t embrace the positive either. Remember how Jedi aren’t supposed to form attachments. Then how are they supposed to care – about anything? Why would they be so eager to defend democracy? Why would they be “attached” to it at all? Caring for it – In fact, giving a damn if it existed at all – would be an emotion, an attachment. You know, one of those things Jedi aren’t supposed to have.
More than that though, is the idea that a Jedi must never get angry. All a person has to do it think about this for the briefest of moments to realize how utterly silly that is. Again, if they can’t get angry, why should they care what Palpatine and the Sith do? Blow up a planet! Eh. Oh well! I mustn’t get angry!
I’m reminded of the biblical story of Christ in the temple, where He throws out the money changers for profaning the House of God. Yes, folks. Jesus got angry. Not because it’s okay to get pissed when someone looks at you cross eyed. No, His anger was righteous anger – anger at a wrong that needed to be corrected.
Heroes – be they Jedi, paladins, or just the Han Solo’s of the universe – need the ability to act, and to act from righteous anger. Without that, the Jedi become what the authors of the New Jedi Order have turned them into – waffling characters who forever struggle with “Is this right? Can I stop this villain? Or am I becoming evil in the attempt?”
In that case, anger isn’t the problem. Inaction is.
Well, folks, that’s all for today. But be sure to check back Thursday for a special posting – a Christmas present many of you have been waiting for quite a while now. Stay Tuned – you’ll love the surprise! 🙂
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, captain america, Heroes, Jeff, Journal, Movie, Novel, Offringa, Personal
“So, do you want to join the army to kill Nazi’s?”
“I don’t want to kill people. I just hate bullies.”
Finally, an explanation of what it means to be a paladin – perhaps the finest I have ever heard! Well, not that one quote in and of itself, but of the new Captain America movie as a whole.
First up, I will admit that before seeing the movie, I knew nothing of Captain America. Well, not exactly nothing, I suppose. But everything that I did know was from reading Ultimate X:Men and Ultimate: Spiderman comics: i.e. he worked for Shield, was a member of the Avengers, and had tangled with some guy named Red Skull back during World War II. Throw in the fact that I’ve generally been disappointed with the Ironman movies and Thor, and I had no real interest in seeing the new movie.
Then a strange thing happened. My Star Wars GM, who is a Captain America freak, had been complaining for months about the casting of Chris Evans (aka Johnny Storm – “You can’t have the same actor play two roles in the same universe!”) as Cap, told me last weekend that “It’s actually pretty good.” After his rants on the other comic book movies this summer, I was very surprised to hear him say that. Glowing praise – no. But it was a strong endorsement.
Then an even stranger thing happened last week Sunday afternoon. Another one of my friends – one of the harshest movie critics I know – called me to say “You need to see this. It’s really good. It might be the best superhero movie ever.”
I was shocked. Two guys who I figured would hate the movie loved it? So when my niece asked me if I wanted to see X-Men with her, I suggested the new Cap movie instead. After all, I’d already seen X-men. “That’s ok,” she responded. “I wanna see Captain America, too.”
I will admit, I enjoyed it. Like X-men, and unlike Thor, it hung together, and was free of plot holes and simpering female sidekicks. The action sequences were good, and it was full of little homage’s to the 1940’s – I found the concept of Cap selling war bonds to be particularly amusing. And while there were minor historical things that irritated me (generally some of the dialogue choices), it never bothered me – not even the “1940’s future tech.” Add in another masterful performance by Hugo Weaving, and we have a truly good movie.
Yet that isn’t my point for the day. Nope: look back to the top of this review. As I said, I knew nothing about Cap before the movie. Now? I’ve finally seen a hero that exemplifies what to me is a Paladin.
Consider: Cap is a hero, but he doesn’t want to be a killer. Yet, OTOH, he will kill when necessary, unlike Batman. Further, he is loyal to his friends, almost to a fault – going into Nazi territory to rescue his captured friend, despite it being a violation of his orders (I.e. placing the “good” over the “law”). He is courageous and brave, yet neither is he “lawful stupid” – he leads by example. Or, put another way, men follow him because they want to, not because they have to. He knows his skills, and he uses them to care for and protect that which is right and good, but doesn’t force his way of doing things on others – he isn’t the Righteous Fool.
Why is this? Simple: he knows that which is right and good isn’t perfect – including him. As I said, he disobeys his superiors to save a friend. He feels sorrow when his companions are killed, and he’s not above trying to drown that sorrow in cheap beer. But neither does he descend into the self-loathing of the anti-hero. After he has his beer, he picks himself up, looks around, and says something to the effect of “It’s Red Skull or me.”
In short, he is a hero – in the classic sense of the word. Not flashy, not a show off. Nor is he in the game for his own ego. Nope, he’s just there to fight for those who can’t. And when Red Skull asks him who he is and why he fights, his response is simply “I’m just a kid from Brooklyn.”
As I watched the movie, I became more and more a fan. Not of the movie per say (as I said, good, not great), but of the character. This is the kind of hero I could follow, and exemplifies the type of character I like to play as well: A guy who does what it right because it is right, and not for any other reason. He is neither a demagogue nor a narcissist. Evil is there and needs to be fought. Can I stop everything? No. But I can stop this evil.
Now, let’s go do it.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: 4th of July, Always remember. Never forget, Aromathus, Heroes, honor our soldiers, Jeff, Journal, Novel, Offringa, Personal, Soldiers
Well, Aromathians, here we are: another 4th of July. Unlike past years, I hadn’t intended this year to talk about the holiday. Rather, I had planned on talking about the topic I’d planned for last week Thursday – the newest Transformers movie. But this morning, as it did last week (which is why there was no Thursday post), real life intervened.
I still want to talk about the movie – after all, it may very well end up being the biggest movie of the summer, and like so many movies lately, I find my opinion on it differing radically from the critics (as they do on Green Lantern, FYI, but that is yet another topic for later).
But no. I woke up this morning, and the news report that was playing on the radio changed my topic, bringing real life back in a way that brought home to me just why we celebrate this day both here, and on July 1st in the Great White North (aka Canada for those of you who only speak orc)
The interview I heard was with a pair of soldiers, both of them young men in their early twenties. The commentator reminded us that in this country, our military is all volunteer.
So now here is a question: Just what does that mean? Well, for one young corporal, it has meant watching friends die in his arms. Collecting the bodies and body parts of his brothers-in-arms. Of returning home and hearing his friends talk about how a bad day for them is a “bad hair day.”
A bad hair day? Really?
I’ve never hid the fact that I am a very pro-military individual, even if I disagree with the policies and decisions that have placed our young men and women “in harms way;” this news report brought that home once again.
Here we sit, safe in our homes. This weekend I’ve had the privilege of going to a movie, seeing old friends at a barbeque, and having dinner with a friend. This afternoon, my family is gathering at the lake for a time of rest and relaxation in the sun.
Yet I can’t help but think of my friend James, overseas in Afghanistan, in command of a rifle platoon of other young men, all of them far away from their loved ones on this holiday. We are free to sit at barbeques and beach parties because they, and thousands of other young people, willingly sacrifice their time, bodies, and even lives so that we can enjoy the freedom to do as we choose.
I have no doubt that these men are heroes, despite the fact that every member of the military I have ever met denies it. “We’re just doing our job,” they say. This is true whether the vet to whom I was speaking was a gray haired senior citizen or a beardless kid straight out of boot camp.
We must never forget this, or their service, either. I know my friend James will bear the scares of his service for the rest of his life, courtesy of an Iraqi IED a few years back. But more than those physical scars are the mental ones.
The last point that the news report I heard this morning discussed this as well. The reporter quoted Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, a veteran of the Civil War, quoting from him from some thirty years after his service in that war. “Soldiers,” he said, “share the brotherhood of war.” I know this to be true, even though I have never been a soldier, let alone in combat. Being shot at, and shooting back, taking a life? That’s something that you truly can’t understand unless you’ve experienced it.
I’ve never talked with my friend about his experiences overseas, never asked him what he’s had to do, but I have talked with many vets of World War II. As the commentator said this morning, they don’t talk about it. Now, however, as these men and women pass on, we – their kids and grand-kids – are going up into the attic and finding dusty old boxes with silver stars and purple hearts in them.
Modern America is a place where less than one percent of us have chosen to give of ourselves in such service. I know I am thankful for those who do, and so I will issue the call I have done in this journal many times before – and will do many times again. As you throw your brats on the grill this afternoon, and as you watch the fireworks displays this evening, thank a veteran. Pray for them, and their families.
There is an oft-quoted cliché that “freedom doesn’t come free.” For many of us, it seemingly does. But for our soldiers, as an old country song says “All gave some, but some gave all.”
Always remember. Never forget.
Filed under: General Musings | Tags: Aromathus, Batman, Fail, Heroes, Jeff, Joker, Journal, Novel, Offringa, Personal, The Dark Knight
Every once and a while, I stumble across something that sums up my thoughts on a topic far more eloquently (and succinctly) than I could say it myself. Such an occurrence took place over the Memorial Day weekend as I read the newest David Weber “Honorverse” short story anthology “In Fire Forged.” In the passage below, the main character, Honor Harrington, is reminiscing about why she became a naval officer. I quote from that book, page 216.
“She remembered something her father had told her once many years ago, when she was only a child. There were times, he’d said, when a man or women confronted evil which had to be stopped. When the only way it could be stopped was by violence. She’d known even then that he was speaking from personal knowledge, and she’d listened silently, sitting beside him, his strong and loving arms wrapped around her. It was only later that she realized he’d already recognized her own hunger for a naval career. That he was deliberately sharing with her something of incalculable value, something he himself had won through terrible and bitter experience.
“When that happens,” he said, “when there’s no choice but to kill evil, then kill it. It’s your duty, and if you flinch, you fail – not just yourself, but everything important in your life. But if it must be done, if there truly is no choice, then do it because you must, not because you want to, and never, ever exalt in the doing. That’s the price of your soul, Honor – the ability to do what must be done without turning yourself into the very thing it is that you’re fighting against.”
Hrm. I’ve finally found an eloquent statement of why Batman fails as a super hero, IMO.
Don’t see where I’m going with this? Well, then let’s consider it this way. At the end of “The Dark Knight,” the Joker makes the point that “You know this means we’re going to do this again,” for the simple fact that Batman won’t “end” him. Batman can’t cross that line. After all, if he does, he becomes like the joker, and moreover, how many innocents might get taken out in the crossfire?
Let’s spin that around: How many more people are going to be injured or killed by the Joker’s next scheme? Or the one after that? Or the next one after that? Since the Batman can take him down, don’t all those injuries – or deaths – fall on his conscience? In my opinion, yes, they certainly do! The Joker in The Dark Knight is supposed to be Agent of Chaos at best, and a rabid dog at worst.
We shoot rabid dogs, don’t we?
Now let’s spin this yet another way. Why are paladins (when played / written properly) great heroes? It’s simple – because they’ve examined themselves, and know that sometimes, taking a life is necessary for the greater good, to protect the innocent, to safeguard those who can’t stick up for themselves. Is that killing evil? No – it’s actually the opposite. Not killing a rabid dog is the evil.
That brings us to the check on a hero. The Joker kills for fun. The hero doesn’t. It costs a hero to take a life (or a soldier, for that matter), and therefore he or she only kills when they absolutely have to, for to do so indiscriminately would turn them into the fallen hero. OTOH, the thought of not taking that life – when necessary – is far more evil.
This is also why the hero must have a code. It explains why Superman works (even though from a storytelling point, I really don’t like his character.) – there is a code to follow – and why Batman fails. The hero does what he must, not because he wants too, but because he has too. Letting evil survive to propagate evil acts – when you could have stopped it – is just as great of an evil as anything the villain does.
So here’s a question for you? Who’s more evil? The Joker, a rabid dog doing what rabid dogs do, or The Batman, who knowingly and willingly allows an evil to go unchecked time and time again?
Does that belief make me bloodthirsty? Maybe in some people’s eyes. OTOH, I am reminded of Edmund Burke’s statement: “The only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good people to sit by and do nothing.”
I could continue my rant, but… You get my point.
Jeff Offringa's Journal 