Landscape of Dull Antiheroes

[Afgncaap5]

In the last three games I've experienced, two as a player and one as a GM, I've seen a hilarious number of tough, gritty, no-nonsense heroes who have, remarkably, almost nothing going for them in the way of ambition, goals, or even preferences in things. I've heard two different people in two different groups within less than a week of each other say "Yeah, I can pretty much smite whatever I want, I don't have to be a *good* paladin, ya know..."

And when it comes to character motivation, I think the closest thing to a direct goal or ideal I've seen is someone saying "Look, I don't care if the thing you stole rightfully belongs to your people, I just wanna be paid."

And, well... that's fair! A world-weary, haggard, been-there-done-that, "what even is 'good', anyway?" character can be fun!

But why is... why is *EVERYONE* doing it?! I mean, I'm not innocent of it either, it's just... bleurgh! It's everywhere! Maybe it's just a fluke, or maybe the transition to springtime is bringing out everyone's inner angst, but geeze.

I swear, I'm gonna have some kind of post-modern hero who actually wants to save the day and stand up for justice the next character I make. You know, really break the mold.

[DracoKnight]

I swear, I'm gonna have some kind of post-modern hero who actually wants to save the day and stand up for justice the next character I make. You know, really break the mold.

So Iron Man or Cap.

[Tanarii]

I swear, I'm gonna have some kind of post-modern hero who actually wants to save the day and stand up for justice the next character I make. You know, really break the mold.Do it. I find true "hero" characters are somewhat rare. They're fun to have in a party as long as they aren't stick-up-their-ass good. An inspiration as opposed to a self-appointed conscience for the group.

OTOh I find many players make characters that will do the right thing more often than the self-serving or actively wrong thing, so long as the DM doesn't go out of their way to punish them for doing so. But that's not really the same thing as a hero. Of course, it's also not really the same thing as a character who is a rigorously self-serving or actively evil anti-hero. It's just that they're usually socialized to be good-ish people by default, while focising on things other than actively going out of their way to do the right thing.

[Lunali]

So Iron Man or Cap.

That's more LG vs CG whereas this is more LG vs N.

Side note: It suddenly feels very weird that Iron Man is the LG one and Captain America is the CG.

[Mercurias]

I have a fun little Warlock I keep wanting to play from a campaign that fell apart. He’s a Tiefling Warlock with a Fiend Patron and an Imp, which I’m incredibly aware isn’t breaking the mold. I always wanted to play him as being a part of the BBEG’s circles or the criminal underworld while secretly yearning support and encourage the good guy sorts.

I’ve done a lot of RP with gritty, powerful people that refuse to be dictated to. It eventually gets old. Characters need to have goals, or else they’re are boring as regular people without goals.

[DracoKnight]

Side note: It suddenly feels very weird that Iron Man is the LG one and Captain America is the CG.

That comes from the fact that Tony Start has as the flaw (along with his long list of other flaws): "I obey the law, even when the law causes misery," because he believes in oversight.

[Pex]

I know the feeling. There have been a number of times over the years where I was the only Good guy. It's aggravating. I'm not asking everyone to be saints, but damn it you don't rob the jewelry store of the town we just saved (2E game). After giving a portion of treasure we found to the surviving villagers whose homes were destroyed when rescuing them from goblins, you don't demand the money back with the excuse of you disapprove of them moving to a new place to get on with their lives instead of rebuilding the demolished village (last game session of my hexblade game).

Other times though I've been quite proud of my fellow players. It's too long a story to go into, but in my paladin game when we returned music boxes to families of those who lost them that was a minor plot point of the campaign since the early beginning, even the Neutral rogue was happy not to accept any reward and let the sentiment speak for itself. I said nothing. He and the fighter volunteered on their own Thanks was thanks enough.

The Good Guys are out there.

[McSkrag]

I think a lot of that comes down to who the player is IRL.

We naturally use cultural tropes from movies, tv, and books as reference points for our characters. It's really easy to go with the standard tropes when you're RPing a character.

It's much harder to dig deeper and add shades of gray and complexity to create characters like The Hound from GoT or Prince Zuko from Last Airbender.

I think the DM and other players at the table can help by incentivizing good character backstories and creating interesting RP situations.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd bet several gold pieces to sweet rolls that the DM might be a tad responsible, perhaps one of the other guys. Personally, I see an influx of these types (aimless anti-heroes) when the DMs actively punish having goals or connections by murdering the crap out of NPCs or having them all be trying to screw over the party. Or a combination, really, where all survivors will go out of their way to plot against the party. Most antiheroes usually have a goal in mind, after all.

Also, if they are insistent on being neutral instead of good...I'd ask the DM on how he treats paladins. If the DM mentions anything about forcing dilemmas, maybe you have your reason right there...

When you next DM, consider the carrot approach. Reward goals and accomplishing them. Reward connections.

[Laserlight]

That comes from the fact that Tony Start has as the flaw (along with his long list of other flaws): "I obey the law, even when the law causes misery," because he believes in oversight.

I'd have said that Cap was LG and Tony CG; Cap didn't want to sign an agreement because once signed, he'd feel bound by it; Tony said "Go ahead and sign it, and then we'll change it to suit." But it's been a while since I watched Civil War.

Wrenching this back on topic, I think that a DM can certainly provide feedback (eg"you saved the little boy's life, and now he turns out to be the villain, bwa ha ha!") that encourages the players to take an antihero route. Of course, some players just like to run grimdark characters, or chaotic nutjobs, or whatever. I personally would rather have a character who has ambitions beyond staying alive for another day and making another goldpiece--and if I'm a DM, I'd certainly rather have PCs like that. Makes it a lot easier to use story hooks if the players actually want something.

[mithrawnudo]

I've noticed a rise in "goalless" characters over a growth of anti-heroes. Most of my experience with the issue also derives from new players expecting quests and goals to drop onto their laps akin to video games or novel plots.
My more experienced base tends to have a goal in mind and seek it, but a bad DM that penalizes non-deadly interactions could sure cause it too.
With 5e's mechanization of backgrounds, I've talked to the players and added complications and boons from their generated backstory, and asked them to keep in mind their character's experiences.

[smcmike]

It should hardly be a surprise - TV, movies, and books these days are also overrun with dull grim antiheroes. Games imitate art.

The real problem is goals, but that’s a question that needs to be worked out in each game. The main reason I see players showing up with poorly defined goals is to maintain the flexibility to adapt their character to the campaign. Strong individual goals are hard in ensemble stories, and doubly hard when you are writing the character in isolation. “I want to find my missing sister” doesn’t give much of an explanation for helping the local duke eliminate another band of goblins.

[Fire Tarrasque]

I've actually never encountered a player like that. All of our characters fall into one of two buckets: A: Have no goal, and are not edgy in any way. Just kind of... boring. And come up with things as they go along. B: Have a VERY clearly defined goal, and ACCOMPLISH IT BY ANY MEANS NESSCARY.
Those characters have excluded: Cat with a Bat: Ended up a more terrifying antagonist than i've ever made. Was part of a quick inter-party conflict. Killed one individual twice, and fed the other offender to a dragon. Got job done.
(Don't know the name): Took over Madagascar, with my current PC's help.

[Tanarii]

On goalless vs goal PCs: personally I make a character with (expected to come up in session) goals only if I'm going to be in a "sandbox" game without its own. In any vaguely linear game, at best, I'll sit down with the DM and figure out goals that directly tie in to the adventures. Or they can arise organically (and quiet possibly retroactively) as the game progresses.

Same for complex personally traits. I tend towards simple ones to start, which grow (again, often retroactively) as they come out in game. Although the 5e personality system has helped me see it helps a bit to specify multiple simple traits across a spectrum of categories to grow from.

On DM abusing plot ho- uh, backstory .. isn't that what it's there for? I mean, I've never had a DM kidnap my sister or parents or poor ol uncle Joe. But I've seen them go after special snowflake #254s secret ninja mentor or waif-fu secret princess love interest time and time again. Because such an NPC is clearly a plot hook. :smallamused:

[Malifice]

In the last three games I've experienced, two as a player and one as a GM, I've seen a hilarious number of tough, gritty, no-nonsense heroes who have, remarkably, almost nothing going for them in the way of ambition, goals, or even preferences in things. I've heard two different people in two different groups within less than a week of each other say "Yeah, I can pretty much smite whatever I want, I don't have to be a *good* paladin, ya know..."

And when it comes to character motivation, I think the closest thing to a direct goal or ideal I've seen is someone saying "Look, I don't care if the thing you stole rightfully belongs to your people, I just wanna be paid."

And, well... that's fair! A world-weary, haggard, been-there-done-that, "what even is 'good', anyway?" character can be fun!

But why is... why is *EVERYONE* doing it?! I mean, I'm not innocent of it either, it's just... bleurgh! It's everywhere! Maybe it's just a fluke, or maybe the transition to springtime is bringing out everyone's inner angst, but geeze.

I swear, I'm gonna have some kind of post-modern hero who actually wants to save the day and stand up for justice the next character I make. You know, really break the mold.

Generally players do it because of bad DMs.

DMs all too often use alignment as a straight jacket, NPC interactions and background character flaws and motivations simply to spring 'gotcha' moments on PCs and so forth.

Its the same reason PCs wear Plate armor in taverns, or while shopping for supplies in town. Because that one time they tried to engage with realism and stated 'DM, Ill take off my chafing armor, and leave it in my room to go shopping' the DM decided to [steal the armor] or [have the PC attacked by thieves].

When you're a CN murder-hobo with no attachments to any-one or anything, who is 'always prepared' and has no motivations beyond 'kill stuff, take its stuff, buy better killing stuff' there is quite often a long history of player/ DM hostility behind it.

Best and easiset way to deal with it is to engage with the players that HAVE given you a backstory and HAVE given three dimensional motivations and characterisations and flaws, and reward those in game.

If Jimmy is playing a no-face CN murderhobo, and Steve is playing a married man with a wife and three children, who adventures under an obligation to his dead father, is trying to rise up the ranks of his church, is NG, but has a gambling problem and has vowed never to harm a child or allow one to be harmed, DONT abduct or kill his family, or use them to strongarm him into an adventure or decision or constantly introduce gambling elements into the game where he loses all his loot, or place him in ethical situations wherehe has to sacrifice something for the kids.

DO introduce situations where his gambling leads to a reward (While you were gambling last night, one of the guys at the table tells you he has found a map leading to an ancient treasure...) or where his family help out (You return home and your wife has obtained some potions of healing) or where his vow to protect children becomes a boon (You recognize the BBEG as Zorgar; a wanted child killer! Your righteous zeal wells up inside you - you have advantage on all attack rolls against him this combat).

Reward the player for engaging in the world and the story, and for creating a three dimensional character (this IS a roleplaying game after all!), taking particular time to reward his flaws. What will happen is the 'CN no-face murderhobo' PC will catch on quick, and will suddenly start doing the same.

For a quick and simple reward mechancism, use the rules for inspiration, and hand it out like candy to PCs who narrate and roleplay flaws and so forth.

CN Murder-hobo will swoon be playing a more 3 dimensional PC and role-playing his backside off.

[Luccan]

Generally players do it because of bad DMs.

DMs all too often use alignment as a straight jacket, NPC interactions and background character flaws and motivations simply to spring 'gotcha' moments on PCs and so forth.

Its the same reason PCs wear Plate armor in taverns, or while shopping for supplies in town. Because that one time they tried to engage with realism and stated 'DM, Ill take off my chafing armor, and leave it in my room to go shopping' the DM decided to [steal the armor] or [have the PC attacked by thieves].



The funny thing is, as long as I don't think they are being a jerk about it, I want my DM to do this sometimes. I want my DM to target my spellbook and take my component pouch (or arcane focus) when we get captured. So long as they don't do it all the time, harm (long term or otherwise) is reasonably avoidable, and I don't feel like they're targeting me specifically, it sounds more interesting than being invulnerable until I'm completely ready to throw down. That said, I can totally see where this can get out of hand.

As for PCs being a bunch of anti-heroes, well... It could be a bad DM experience, as Malifice points out. Or it could just be they like anti-heroes. Here's the thing to remember, though: most anti-heroes actually do have motives. And even jaded characters only in it for the money can have friends (namely other PCs, in the case of an RPG). It's possible, too, that anything beyond "kill things, get loot" isn't interesting to the player and this is reflected by their character being a terse jerk at best when RP comes up. They just want to kill monsters and look cool doing it, they don't care about the NPCs. In all cases (if you're DM), it's best to sit down with them, explain what's bothering you and why, and ask why they don't want their character to have attachments like regular folks (and many fantasy heroes) do.

[War_lord]

People have always looked to fiction to inspire the characters they play. And modern fiction, be it TV, film, novels or video games is full of antiheroes. So naturally, people gravitate towards that. As for dullness, the appeal of many fictional antiheroes is that they succeed while struggling against both their circumstances and their flaws. Most cases of bland or unlikable anti-heroes are created when the character lacks that element of struggle. And by design, D&D 5e lacks that sense of struggle.

So you end up with a character who's naturally good at everything they apply themselves to and can dominate any opposition. And that's not an antihero, that's a jerk.

But to sum it up, people are playing antiheroes because they're popular. Antiheroes are popular because most people identify with them. We identify with antiheroes because they share the same struggles as us, even if in a fantastical framework. This doesn't really work in D&D (or 5e at least) because the PC is inherently a privileged character, which is why they come across as bland.

[Millstone85]

It could also be that players are used to the setting being a landscape of dull antiheroes.

What is a party of adventurers? A small group of mercenaries, hired for jobs like retrieving an item from an ooze-infested sewer, or tracking down and eliminating an annoying orc leader (thus creating a vengeful orphan).

And those adventurers who try to be something else? Well, since we are talking Iron Man and Cap...
"But while a great many some people see you as heroes, there are some a great many who would prefer the word vigilantes."

[War_lord]

I mean, arguably the "mercenary git who isn't cruel, but only really cares about getting paid with the least amount of fuss" was the original kind of D&D character. XP gain was loot based, fights were dangerous, and usually there was no story beyond "loot here, go take it". The noblebright hero of destiny on a mission to save the world was a later import inspired by high fantasy fiction.

[DeadMech]

Let me be real. I've had my share of anti-hero characters. I don't think it's a go to for me or anything but it's happened. Sometimes it's interesting if done well but it's typically more interesting to use it as a starting point that they will grow from or to do something else instead.

I think an issue is that sometimes people aren't able to properly communicate intention or goals. Sometimes we forget what we were planning because it's been a month since last session. Sometimes our goals are far off from where we are now. Sometimes the character isn't comfortable sharing their goals. So even if you ask them what they want they might not be able to tell say. And of course yeah some players just aren't good at making goals or roleplaying characters so everything just kinda becomes fuzzy disgruntled hard to impress badass-wannabe who doesn't see why he should take people's abuse who drifts from bounty to bounty.

[Chaosmancer]

One thing I've seen is that DMs don't really reward selfless heroes and a lot of people don't know how to reward beyond gold and items.

Mercenaries are the default style. They care about money, the DMs are going to reward play with money, and once you start thinking in those terms "anti-heroes" become inevitable results

[Tanarii]

What is a party of adventurers? A small group of mercenaries, hired for jobs like retrieving an item from an ooze-infested sewer, or tracking down and eliminating an annoying orc leader (thus creating a vengeful orphan).
Yeah that's a good summary of pretty most D&D Partys* I've seen, at least to start off.

The most interesting Partys I've ever participated in or ran were ones that worked for a specific organization or purpose. Thieves Guild, the Army, the Guard (and a more modern detective/police), Pirates, and of course explicit Mercenaries organizations. I think the only time I've seen Heroic Heroes being the goal of the Party, as opposed to a later result of a series of adventures, it was a Ravenloft-style campaign.

*The Party is a proper noun, a label. Clearly the plural is Partys not parties. 😂

[Chaosmancer]

I know the feeling. There have been a number of times over the years where I was the only Good guy. It's aggravating. I'm not asking everyone to be saints, but damn it you don't rob the jewelry store of the town we just saved (2E game). After giving a portion of treasure we found to the surviving villagers whose homes were destroyed when rescuing them from goblins, you don't demand the money back with the excuse of you disapprove of them moving to a new place to get on with their lives instead of rebuilding the demolished village (last game session of my hexblade game).

Other times though I've been quite proud of my fellow players. It's too long a story to go into, but in my paladin game when we returned music boxes to families of those who lost them that was a minor plot point of the campaign since the early beginning, even the Neutral rogue was happy not to accept any reward and let the sentiment speak for itself. I said nothing. He and the fighter volunteered on their own Thanks was thanks enough.

The Good Guys are out there.

Reading this I was reminded of a short lived campaign. The DM specifically wanted us to be a mercenary company, so I made my fighter and gave him a backstory and decided that his goal was simply to make this mercenary company a success.

We got hired to kill a giant who was threatening a farming community. One of the other players actually got upset when my character accepted the original payment instead of his plan which consisted of 1) figuring out how much financial damage the giant had caused 2) double that because the giant had had a friend when we confronted them and of course 3) threaten to kill and destroy farms until we got paid.

It was like the idea of having a reputation just didn't make sense to them.

They also got upset with me wanting to stay near our guildhall, which was in Waterdeep if memory serves, instead of chasing after random rumors a continent away.

[Sception]

The antiheroes i run tend to be the most motivated and the most interactive with the world. The dark knight who took jobs to advance their house's position, and tried to recruit any villain they encountered, for example. But then they died.

Adventuring is messy, lethal business, and campaigns just stop far more often than they actually end. It gets tiring to work out complex goals and motivations for characters when they have so little chance of ever being seen to completion.

[Tanarii]

Adventuring is messy, lethal business, and campaigns just stop far more often than they actually end. It gets tiring to work out complex goals and motivations for characters when they have so little chance of ever being seen to completion.Yeah. Also, it's fine and dandy to have "off-screen" goals that will never be realized within a campaign's time span for a character. It can potentially give a character depth. But if the character will never have an in character discussion with another character where it will come up, it won't affect their actions during the game significantly, and there's no chance they will be realized during the scope of the campaign, why detail them? I'd rather have the flexibility to make up something on the fly later on.

I generally assume my character has an extended family and a home town, but don't feel the need to detail them before play unless it's explicitly the local adventuring area AND going to be relevant. That way I can make up details and throw them in on the fly. Ditto for why my gal adventures. I assume I want to make a bunch of money quickly, am willing to risk my life for it, and retire. Unless I make up something more specific on the fly. When a campaign just stops, I can close the story in my head with "and then she retired to the big city, and opened a storefront buying and selling magic items and collectibles to nobles using her adventuring phat lootz as seed money". Or whatever.

[Contrast]

Speaking from personal experience the last time I played a character who wanted to be a hero, I only got to play them til level 3 as that was how long it took someone else in the party to go murderhobo forcing my character to leave the group in disgust.

[Requilac]

I think that a lot of the time when you have a goalless character in the game, it is because you have a player who isn't interested in that sort of thing. Some people aren't into D&D for roleplay and narrative, they just want to see their characters beat stuff up and get loot for it. The easiest way skip past all those roleplaying scenes they hate is by playing a careless and heartless character. I would venture to say that at least half of the D&D players I have met were of that mentality. While I don't personally understand it and prefer roleplaying much more, I recognize that murderhoboism is a time honored tradition and a viable method of playing. I think you need to focus your attention more on the player's mentality than the mentality of their character's.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The real problem is goals, but that’s a question that needs to be worked out in each game. The main reason I see players showing up with poorly defined goals is to maintain the flexibility to adapt their character to the campaign. Strong individual goals are hard in ensemble stories, and doubly hard when you are writing the character in isolation. “I want to find my missing sister” doesn’t give much of an explanation for helping the local duke eliminate another band of goblins.
Agreed on every level. I tend towards the Shining Armor end of the spectrum, but since I basically never know what the campaign is going to be about (and only one of the people I play with is likely to even try to incorporate character backstories into the adventure), I end up as just a generic goody-two-shoes who ends up on the quest either because saving the world is goody-two-shoes or because he's afraid of what the rest of the party will do if he's not there. (It's less that the rest of the group tends towards evil characters and more that most of them tend towards...stupid characters. Some due to apathy, one for comedy, and one despite his best efforts.)
Part of the problem is that my group almost exclusively runs premade adventure paths. If the players don't already have knowledge of the plot, it's going to be hard to make a background and motive that fits into the campaign without either making it generic enough to fit into any campaign or extensive hinting by the DM. Those generic backgrounds are mostly going to be some variant of "mercenary" or "Shining Armor," and it's not hard to argue that a dull antihero is less boring than a dull goody-two-shoes. (As someone in said shoes almost by default, I'd agree.)



Side note: It suddenly feels very weird that Iron Man is the LG one and Captain America is the CG.
I'd guess it's because Cap is an embodiment of the spirit of America...specifically, the part which the real America isn't embodying.
I can't say anything about either comic series, but the proximate motivations in the movie made sense. Stark wanted to put regulations in place because he realized the harm that unregulated vigilantes could cause (which parallels his motivations for dropping the Stark weapons department in his first movie), while Steve was one of those vigilantes and saw the regulations as an impediment to his heroism (and specifically his attempts to protect and reform Bucky). I'm not sure it makes sense to call Stark LG or Cap CG in general, however.


Games imitate art.
Games are art. I mean, assuming you consider films art; if you'd argue that only some films are art, I'd amend that to some games are art.

[EvilAnagram]

I've seen that tendency quite a bit in my campaigns, but I've gotten pretty good at negating it.

Part of it had been that I'm very clear in Session Zero. I'm not interested in running evil campaigns, and I'm very upfront about that, so my players respect it. I won't stop them from playing their characters as they envision them, but I ask them not to envision characters that don't fit the tone of the game I'm running.

Part of it is that I can keep a pretty consistent tone, and I design the story to hit certain beats. My "Pirates" campaign was a swashbuckling treasure hunt with weird and sometimes ridiculous encounters, and my players felt free to explore some out-there characters.

Part of it is that I know how stories work. My home campaign dealt with politics and some pretty lovable allies and some truly horrific antagonists (Rakshasa, ftw!), so my somewhat mercenary party ended up pursuing more heroic activity when push came to shove.

Tl;dr: Agree on the kind of game you want beforehand, keep a consistent tone, and design the story to encourage the kind of play you desire.