Proactive Heroism and cutting the Root of Evil

[Yora]

In a lot of stories, the villains are much more memorable and fun than the heroes, who often lean to be generically bland. A problem that often carries over into campaigns when the heroes are simply performing the task the GM has given them, along the path the GM is anticipating.
The source of this problem is that in the standard heroes's journey and quest plots, the villains act and the heroes react. The villain's story begins with deciding one day that they want to accomplish something. They want to bring change and to build something, even if its with the blood and on the backs on others. The hero's story begins with someone telling them to do something about it. Sometimes it seems that it's the heroes who want to bring change, but usually that change is simply to return things to the way they were before the villain did his thing, which is accomplished by killing him. Same story, just that the heroes start with a big delay.

But I think this can actually be flipped around, so that it is the heroes who are taking the initiative and are on the offensive. For this you need a setting that is unpleasant and in which this unpleasantness is not seen as a disruption, but as the way people assume it's supposed to be. It's not that one villain did something bad which now needs to be reversed. It's that the world in which people's live are nasty and brutish as a matter of fact.
In such an environment you can have heroes who get up one morning and decide that they are going to work to make things better. Even if it's just in one small place. Instead of cutting of the snake's head and letting all the evil die, the heroes have to dig up the root of evil and fight it's cause.

I don't quite see it working to transform whole continents within a single campaign, but it could have a great potential as a smaller sandbox about pacifying a lawless region.

Any thoughts on how to set up and populate a sandbox to make this work best?

[Darth Ultron]

The trick is the classic hero is a hero of the establishment: they fight to make things back to the right way and keep things the same. They do only react.

Of course the storyteller does not want to tell the story of a hero that goes against or opposes the establishment.....or the sheep people might get ideas.

Unless the storyteller makes a fictional evil establishment...one that is nothing like the ''real'' one, of course(wink wink).

When you have an evil empire or such doing bad things, it is easy for a heroes to oppose that...but the trick is you must make it ''game worthy''. So doing practical things like changing the hearts and minds of the population don't really translate into ''game things to do''. That is why games focus more on the bang: action things you can do in a game.

[JellyPooga]

There's actually a fair bit of precedent for the kind of thing you're talking about;

- Ravenloft is the D&D setting for this. The status quo is "things are bad". The heroes try to make things better.

- Many Wild West games are based in such circumstances. The "lawless town" that the Federal Marshal and his Posse come in to "clean up". The anti-hero gunslinger and his buddies turn up in a town ruled by gun-runners and liquor dealers. The villagers who recruit the morally dubious bounty hunters to help with their recurring bandit problem and end up being the ones who solve the problem AND the new problem the bounty hunters have become since they arrived.

Other examples abound.

[Anonymouswizard]

Let's be honest, your average D&D character is the villain.

But in short, to flip this around a hero needs a reason to act. This can be making the world a better place, or they can be entirely selfish motivations (commonly better status). The problem is that they can be hard to know when to end.

[Mechalich]

So doing practical things like changing the hearts and minds of the population don't really translate into ''game things to do''.

This is basically the core problem. Heroic adventure generally is reactive - heroes go out and seek the means to stop some active source of evil, whether that evil is a horrible dragon or a corrupt minister. The presumption is that once the active source is removed things will go back to normal, and while the status quo might in fact be fairly awful (certainly by 21st century standards) its presumed to be better than chaos.

Circumstances have to be pretty awful for the operative solution to be 'to the barricades!' and even when that happens, assuming you win and put the enlightened ruler on the throne, then you're transitioning into kingdom building and while challenges might remain they are probably going to be lesser in scope than what you faced before. In the classic LotR example, Aragorn takes the throne after Sauron is defeated and rules in peace for over a century. There are wars during that time and problems that are suppressed and other challenges, but compared to the War of the Ring they're all pretty minor.

It's a common trope in long-running fantasy series to watch the heroes beat down some terrible evil horror only to have a new one arise seemingly from nowhere that is more horribly evil and horribly powerful than the one before, but, and let's all be honest here, this is really quite stupid and quickly descends into camp.

[veti]

"How to make the world a better place" is seldom obvious. If it were, then politics would be a lot simpler.

As a general rule, the easiest way to make the world better for some population usually involves screwing over some other population. See, e.g., slavery, or driving other people off their land (which is the root of approximately every war in human history). If the characters come up with a plan to do something like this, they are the villains for someone else to stop.

If the players can come up with a plan that *doesn't* involve something like this, then their first task is likely to involve heading off some less scrupulous rival who has their own plan, it's quicker and easier and surer than ours, and most of the people really like the sound of it.

[Mastikator]

You need to have an actual root of evil for this to even make sense. Unless your PC is tackling common causes of criminal behavior (poverty, economic and social inequality are two of the biggest factors) in which case they're basically fighting an uphill battle against all of society.

To be perfectly frank I don't see how "pacifying lawless regions" is anything but an euphemism for wholesale slaughter and/or slavery. Which is neither heroic or good.

[Bogwoppit]

Cyberpunk 2020 had a section on this topic - they called it Stepping into the Light.
After a few routine edge running missions, extracting corporate assets or whatever, the GM presents evidence of a morally repellent situation, and gives the player team the option to act on it as they wish.

So now your players know about the evil things being done, and can do stuff to undermine it, or even try to stop it.

As a GM, you can prepare new scenarios where information about the evil guy's operations fall into the team's hands, or you can react to the team's plans, or most likely a combination of both.

This fairly easily translates to fantasy gaming too - the powerful leaders of the land are propped up by some evil deeds, and the player party find out.

[Yora]

When you have an evil empire or such doing bad things, it is easy for a heroes to oppose that...but the trick is you must make it ''game worthy''.

I think an Evil Empire is something that really wouldn't work. Where would you even begin to take down a whole empire all by yourself? The only way to do that in fiction is to kill the emperor, and then you're right back at where we started.

Putting an end to banditry in one area is comperatively much more managable. Something like Yojimbo/A Fistfull of Dollars would be a great scenario, though that would require the players to be pretty clever. (And it's just not as fun if you have to tell the players that they are supposed to manipulate the gangs by claiming to join them.)

[Cluedrew]

"How to make the world a better place" is seldom obvious. If it were, then politics would be a lot simpler.

And here is the crux of the issue. Making the world a better place is often a more complex issue than keeping it from getting worse.

Taking down a bad guy is simple, and takes a good deal less work than implementing social change. For that you are probably want to start pumping charisma (or similar) because a lot of it is going to be about getting people to follow through on the change you are trying to make. Stopping banditry in an area isn't just about disabling the gangs that are their now, it is about keeping new ones from cropping up. It means policing the area, it means economic opportunities and support so people don't have to turn to banditry.

So for preparing a sandbox I would say: Implement it in a system that has as many group social mechanics as possible. Also have an obvious social issue to fix, preferably one that people in the setting are already starting to question. Not only does that help highlight it but it give the party allies to start changing the world.

[Darth Ultron]

I think an Evil Empire is something that really wouldn't work. Where would you even begin to take down a whole empire all by yourself? The only way to do that in fiction is to kill the emperor, and then you're right back at where we started.

Putting an end to banditry in one area is comperatively much more managable. Something like Yojimbo/A Fistfull of Dollars would be a great scenario, though that would require the players to be pretty clever. (And it's just not as fun if you have to tell the players that they are supposed to manipulate the gangs by claiming to join them.)

But is not ''putting an end to banditry in one area'' the reacting plot? A bad guy decides to become a bandit, then the heroes react and go over and stop them.

If the Evil does have Roots....it must also have a Big Tree.

To change an Empire, other then the combat way does not make for an adventure game with single adventurer type characters.

Like say the characters had an Empire of Orcs enslaving Elves. Ok, the characters could slowly over a generator or so teach the orcs that slavery is wrong and everyone is equal. But that just does not translate well into an action adventure game.

[Vitruviansquid]

But is not ''putting an end to banditry in one area'' the reacting plot? A bad guy decides to become a bandit, then the heroes react and go over and stop them.

If the Evil does have Roots....it must also have a Big Tree.

To change an Empire, other then the combat way does not make for an adventure game with single adventurer type characters.

Like say the characters had an Empire of Orcs enslaving Elves. Ok, the characters could slowly over a generator or so teach the orcs that slavery is wrong and everyone is equal. But that just does not translate well into an action adventure game.

Yeah, but then wouldn't people just say that the players are still reacting, over a long period of time, to an orc's decision to enslave an elf?

[Pleh]

Worth mentioning that "proactive good" is often something not just one person is involved in doing.

Remember this is a system where Good is a cosmic force often being served by cosmic deities who have large armies of mortal (edit: and celestial) servants. Proactive Goodliness in that case can be as simple as making converts, which you have to handle delicately, as real world history and a large portion of fictional narrative are a terrible examples of this. Taking the ton of salt necessary for this concept, it is rather trivial to suppose there is a religious group ACTUALLY devoted to Goodness (and not merely some twisted variant of the concept). Every convert to the faith you make just contributes to the goal of getting every sentient being into aligning themselves with the cosmic force of Good.

This doesn't mesh too well with Great Wheel cosmologies, where destroying Evil throws off the balance and dooms the universe to blah blah blah.

For it to work, Cosmic Good has to actually be better and preferential to Cosmic Evil, not just a Yin and Yang balance of positive and negative. You have to be able to rationally want Cosmic Good to win beyond, "rooting for team G."

Proactive Good missions can include social programs. Your mission, hero, is to travel the land and make sure people aren't starving (and generally have all their basic needs met).

If you really want a good example of this kind of "what do good guys do when BBEGs aren't in the picture?" look no further than Star Trek (sure, there were Klingons and Romulans, but they were often not at all the focus). You travel the world, just wanting to meet new people and see if you can strengthen Good even more by connecting as many Good creatures into the peaceful world as you can, helping them overcome their problems as much as they allow.

You just go out and start helping other people make their lives better.

[Yora]

But is not ''putting an end to banditry in one area'' the reacting plot? A bad guy decides to become a bandit, then the heroes react and go over and stop them.

I think the key to giving players a different experience is to have them decide that they want to change something about the world, instead of telling them that there is one problem they are supposed to fix.

Remember this is a system where Good is a cosmic force often being served by cosmic deities who have large armies of mortal (edit: and celestial) servants.

Says who? That's entirely up to the world in which the campaign takes place. None of that is universal fantasy standard.

[Satinavian]

Seriously i wouldn't take D&D for that kind of game.

Such campaigns with proactive heroes usually are about building something up or trying to find ways around harsh environmental conditions or about politics. D&D is bad at all three of those.

D&D is a fighting game at its core and thus works best if you have antagonists from the start who already have some violent conflict with the PCs, are about to start some (lwhich would be proactive antagonists) or are about to be attacked by the PCs (which is one of the reasons the murderhobo concept exists). It is not heroic to attack people or be the first one to resort to violence. Which means to have proactive heroes deserving the name the antagonists need to be already in the process of doing really evil stuff justifying the attack. Which again is against the premise.

[noob]

You could just let the players roam freely.
A dozen of days later they will be making a town inhabited by thousand of simulacrum creating magical items that create food and water and build houses for everybody.(and more simulacrum)
Of course most of the forces of order and chaos and good and evil and adventurers would attack the thing the players create.(because if there was not forces that came and destroyed all similar things then the world would already be filled with simulacrum and magic items that makes everybody life easier)
Then it becomes spreadsheet: the rpg.

[Pleh]

Says who? That's entirely up to the world in which the campaign takes place. None of that is universal fantasy standard.

Reading the rest of my post makes it more clear that I was suggesting AN answer, not that my suggestion was THE answer.

I mentioned it doesn't play well with the common Great Wheel mythology.

[Vitruviansquid]

I think the key to giving players a different experience is to have them decide that they want to change something about the world, instead of telling them that there is one problem they are supposed to fix.

I don't get it, so this "proactive heroes" thing just means having a sandbox campaign? Well there are plenty of sandbox campaigns around. What's the difference?

Until now, I thought by "proactive heroism" you meant something like how in D&D you might have a bunch of heroes go down into a dungeon and grab some artifact or kill some villain. The artifact/villain isn't bothering anyone at the moment, but might in the future, or are generically evil and so generic intervention is necessary.

[aberratio ictus]

Honestly, I don't understand your problem. Just let them play rebels. Contrary to what Darth Ultron says, such games are fairly common.

It sounds more like this is a sandbox-railroad issue more than a good-evil issue.

The establishment can be very proactive as well.

[Earthwalker]

I am currently thinking of running a FATE game involving super heroes and the first issue I came up with was how the nature of Super Heroes works with a proactive system like FATE. Super Heroes I find are reactive. The bad guy comes to town with his ray gun that changes people into Dinosaurs and the Heroes assemble and then deal with the dinosaur threat.

I was thinking of in session 0 asking what do the characters want to do to make the world better. How do they want to do that and what do they care about?

Some of this is going to depend on what Heroes my players make and that will hopefully lead to good stories. Are they making an enemy that’s a recurring villain group? (to plan against) Are they a friendly neighborhood super hero based in a small area they could try to improve. (Helping the local community center for example)
I am guessing when we work out the problems the heroes will face things will be clearer. Of course

I am really hoping that we can find something to build on, a place or idea the heroes go out of their way to improve not just stopping the Evil cult poisoning the water supply.

[Slipperychicken]

How about you have the players go out to secure plans, devices, or resources that could improve the situation or prevent a crisis. Then the antagonists could just be people who either disapprove of its use, or who want the thing for their own faction.

The PCs could also do things like help tame a wilderness which wasn't immediately threatening to civilization, so that the protagonists' faction could expand there.

Likewise, heroes can set out on their quest to make peoples lives better. That can mean beating up things like monsters that happen to be sitting on useful resources, or gaining leaders' trust so that beneficial projects can move forward. Or it could mean lifting the hearts of the oppressed by making the pre-existing oppressive antagonist factions look weak (usually by defeating their minions or sabotaging their operations).

[Tinkerer]

Yeah, when people say "proactive heroism" in an action setting it tends to read as "punishing the innocent because they have the potential to do something evil". In order for the heroes to be acting instead of reacting they have to be doing something positive without injury to others. By being Heroic they cannot be causing injury to others without there being just cause, which means they are reacting. Indeed the word "hero" literally means protector or defender which implies that they need to be protecting or defending against some force.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are two sorts of "reactive" that are perhaps fundamentally different in how they paint the protagonists.

Are the protagonists actively going out to seek out this evil in reaction to the general state of affairs, and then taking proactive steps to get out ahead of events and seize the initiative?

Or are the protagonists reacting to something directly affecting them, and remaining behind events with the antagonists driving events to the very end?