Inspired by the Ira Stannhope thread, an idea about Heroic

[DapperAnarchist]

Perhaps, come INQ2.0, we should rename it. Heroic is a skill I have still yet to use (nor have I used Leader, or Lightning Reflexes. I'm weird). Now, most of my characters are either cautious, or of low rank, nearly NPC status, and so Heroic wouldn't suit. The one who probably would suit the "does something incredibly dramatic" condition most is a villain, and so saying he is "Heroic" seem inappropriate. However, taking the Nolan Batman movies, Batman would be Heroic, but Gordon might not, and the other Bat-allies certainly not (perhaps DKR will change that). However, the Joker would probably be Heroic, as might Bane - they take huge personal risks to complete their missions. The Scarecrow, Ra's Al Ghul, and Coleman Reese are definitely not Heroic, nor are they heroes. But Bane and the Joker are not heroes either, so how do they fit in? I left Harvey/Two-face out for simplicity... This isn't exactly a radical change, but more a casual suggestion, and I didn't want to clog up someone else's thread with stuff.

[Kaled]

I think too often people get hung up on the name Heroic.  I've seen people rename it for their villian characters, but I don't think that's necessary - it's just the name of a skill, not a description of the characters moral code.

[Charax]

see, this is pretty much the same problem I have with Wyrd, the connotation of the name and the rule are unconnected. if Heroic is not a reflection of the character's moral code then it shouldn't be called Heroic, it should be called Reliable or something.

[RobSkib]

I've renamed the 'Heroic' ability plenty of times during creation of my characters - It has gone under the guise of "Lucky", "Anti-Hero", "Explosives Expert" and "Chaos Puppet".

They all represent the same overall idea though; the character has enough aptitude in his field (through design or otherwise) to warrant some increased protection from risky actions. Some of them are fairly self evident - you can't imply someone is an expert in explosives when he suffers the same risks as an untrained civilian when using grenades, and you can't take a moustache-twirling UltraVillain(tm) seriously if he trips over his bootlaces trying to escape after activating the 5 minute self-destruct timer for his UltraLair(tm). I find the combination of using a familiar rule with some flavour text helps define the character better than just saying he has plain Heroic, or crafting a new, complex rule for that one character.

On the other hand, I do have a character who is 'Ill-fated' who treats all Sixes as Ones for Risky Actions, and one character who is explosively removed from play if he rolls all Ones for his actions.

In my opinion, it's much easier (for Conclave meets, anyway) on players if characters stick to standardised special rules, but rename them (if appropriate) to better suit the character, rather than coming up with reams of complex special rules that slow the games down both when explaining and executing them.

For example, you have a character who is possessed by a daemonic entity that revels in the pain it brings to it's host. It does not exhert it's own powers through the host, apart from prolonging any agony the host suffers by keeping it alive, on the brink of death. You could make up a dozen awesome special rules for this character, which would be great, individual and characterful. Better, in my opinion, to say the character has a special rule called 'warp tortured' that counts as True Grit. It's not a conscious decision on the character's part to be bad-ass, its the daemon putting him through more agony for as long as possible, so 'True Grit' is not an appropriate attribute of the character.

Within 3 seconds, you've explained to the gaming table (most of whom you would not have met/spent any amount of time with or explaining your characters to) exactly how your character operates, within a sphere of understanding that all the players exist in. I have found that renaming a common special rule using two or three words that sum up the character in a nutshell is more valuable than a two special ability tables and six extra new abilities.

I like to be able to read off the list of Special Abilities like an evil CV for a character, defining him in 4 or 5 words. "Leader, Lightning Reflexes and Heroic" on one character sheet would read as "Manipulator, Quick Witted and Anti-Hero". Functionally identical, yet change the character overview from 'bland, first attempt at an Inquisitor' to 'Don't kill them quickly, tie them to the traintracks and cackle maniacally'.

That said, I design my characters with others in mind - loaning out to new players, GMs who need spare NPCs, extra additions to warbands for plot reasons, etc. I write rules with enough individuality to set the character apart, and enough accessibility that even the greenest Inquisitor player understands how the character operates.

[Dolnikan]

In our local group we have had one character get the heroic skill, and that one did all the things you would expect, including saving damsels(most often his boss) and swinging down on ropes to attack enemies from a building. In this case the name fitted perfectly for the character.

The name of the skill does however invoke a kind of character, more than any other. Leader can stand for all kinds of leadership styles where heroic looks much more like something only for the Heroes(TM). Renaming it could be done but a new name would need to include several facets. Firstly it would have to sound like something only for the kind of character that beats the odds, and does truly insane things. But it also has to be more neutral, something that characters of all kinds of backgrounds could be. Unfortunately my knowledge of the English language isn;t all that good and I can't think of a name that I could propose.

[Koval]

Daredevil, perhaps?

[Shannow]

Or, on a more realistic note, how about:

"F**k it, I'll be fine"

Has a ring to it I've heard and uttered before....

[Adlan]

Hold my beer and watch this.....

maybe make it a requirement to spend an action having a swig first.

[Draco Ferox]

I heartily second Adlan, but maybe replace beer with second best.

[krenshar]

A heroic person is essentially someone who acts when those around them don't.  Whether that's running into a burning building to rescue a neighbour, or breaking into a feared sorcerer's tower when every other thief says it's death to try (I may have been reading lots of Conan lately), it's a matter of will.  At least that's my interpretation.

If writing Heroic on a villain's character sheet feels wrong, it could be called Courageous, Determined, Dauntless, Unbowed (just immediate ideas) or whatever suits the character.  But heroic can be a neutral term and needn't be seen as a moral label; the classical Greek heroes like Odysseus had qualities to be admired and emulated, but he also opened the gates of Troy so that he and his allies could massacre soldiers and civilians alike.