I think (and I'm not by any stretch of the imagination an expert on these things, or even reasonably knowledgable) that a Hero is someone who changes things mythically in some way. Whether it's someone who forges or changes a Heropath in the Heroplane or who discovers a new Feat or Affinity,I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to have a _Hero_plane and a _Hero_quest if being called a Hero by your peers doesn't involve them in some way.
I don't really think that having high enough abilities in itsself qualifies you to be a Hero.
> >My question was asked more because people seem to
> have a definition of "Hero" as opposed to hero.
>
> I hope that I didn't seem sarcastic in my post,
> talking about third level fighters, Superman and the
> Incredible Hulk. That was not my intention, anyway.
Nope, wasn't taken that way. I though it was a good point about avoiding going too far in the "Level 3 means I'm a Swordsman, boy, if I make Level 4, I'll be a Swashbuckler. I can't wait!" direction and keeping more with the (IMO)Gloranthan style of defining things according to the culture that is involved with them and trying to get inside the Gloranthan inhabitants heads to define terms.
> This seems like a reasonable definition to me. Even
> though I do not agree that the definition of a hero
> necessarily must be culturally subjective. One can
> make a more or less objective definition, I believe.
Agreed. The only problem I see is that if you define it too strictly it becomes like a rank you achieve, not a title bestowed upon you.
Harry.
Powered by hypermail