So, I figure since I've been fucking around with this thought for a bit now, and it might be a good way to actually get some sort of original-fiction discussions going, I'd post this here.

It's probably not at all an original question, but I've never really found a good answer to the question regarding one of the more common cliche origins running around fantasy stories. That is:

Why is it that the vast majority of heroes/protagonists are royalty 90% of the time? Tavi was the last one to make me ask that question on DLP (though in IRC at the time.).

What I mean by that is that, you get some Joe Commonfolk who somehow saves the day in the beginning of a series. Invading armies from across the sea no one knows about, stopping hords of goblins, dragons, and other vile things. And after a book or two more of his continuing quest, it turns out that Joe is actually the son of the recently dead prince of whatever the fuck it is, but no one new because zomg the prince banged a commoner?! and somehow died in whatever previous conflict or was assassinated.

The answer I remember getting at the time from whoever never really made any sense at all to me. I think it was Sree that said it when I asked, but I could be wrong... But the TL-DR of it was this:

"Do you really want to read about somebody who isn't special in any way at all? Just some random hick from the middle of whatever?"

And the answer I always come up with is yes. To say otherwise, in my mind, says that only the son of a king/prince or someone from a noble family can be a hero. Do remarkable things...

Maybe it makes me weird to think that, Iunno... Either way, what does the general populous of the asylum think?

 

I agree with you, but the unknown royalty is a staple of the high fantasy genre for a reason. It allows the author to reasonably escalate the conflict the hero gets into up to state levels without having to bullshit a reason for why he's in control of massive armies. Adding in that it's also part of the underdog story where the oft neglect and abused hero gains power and respect up to the point where he's a nationally recognised and loved figure. Becoming King is the natural progression of that line of thought.

 

Don't forget the other shortcut to royalty: marry the princess. Often authors will combine the two. <_<

 

I think the issue becomes, a lot of authors want to shortcut the story into 'my character was awesome all along because he comes from a line of awesome people' because it somehow seems to validate them as even more awesome because it's in their blood or something.

I think it's all bullshit, and I'm with you on that point, Vash. I hate reading about people who start off normal and then have to get hit with a whole bunch of things that make them far more than normal without them having to put in the work to deserve any of it. I mean, we see it in HP fics all the time. Suddenly discovering he's the heir of everyone and their mother and getting the fortune as a result. People generally feel like they're expected to care about royalty, so making someone 'supaspeshul' is the shortcut to getting readers caring. I guess.

I'd far prefer reading about the normal overcoming the exceptional out of planning, skill and determination. (Ironic for those who have seen my anti-Murphy rants, yes) But there's a greater story in a normal person going above and beyond I think.

That turned rambling. But tl;dr, it's usually wish fulfillment by the author, or its an attempt to validate their characters as important by making them important-by-blood, in my opinion. Bullshit, tbh.

 

I agree. I'd like to read about a normal person who just happens to be a badass when it comes to fighting and being a leader of armies.

 

It is better to read about a serf rising through the blood and bodies of his enemies to stand upon the throne and declare himself God-King by virtue of everyone else being dead, or behind his rise to power than to have it be some random king's bastard child. IMO it is better to be the dynasty founder than the next guy in line to the throne.

 

I do dig someone being a long-lost heir to a throne or kingdom in it's twilight days (blame it on my love of Arthurian mythology), but it has been abused more than enough times to require a strong enough counter example to knock it out. The Rigante series had Demonbane, but he married a local lord's daughter and so it's not quite close enough. Druss & Waylander were great examples of non-royal heroes in the Drenai series, but they're not modern books and consequently don't get as much attention as new fantasy books.

I think the problem with commoner heroes is that authors like their characters to be awesome in most regards and have the respect of most people around them. If they're going to reach for the throne, they don't fancy there being resistance post-Great Victory to the new king. If the main character is going to get involved with high-level politics and shit, he's got to have an in. A bloodline is the most logical conclusion.


As a sidenote, I have been slowly working on a Commoner! Hero story myself. Basically a blind herb-witch's bastard whose a camp follower in an expeditionary army rises to the occasion after said army gets smashed to bits. He ends up accidentally saving the commanding officer of the army and getting them both back to safe territory, and from there starts his rise to glory and fall to disgrace .

 

I have to answer yes as well. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed D2 so much, yet I don't really like Skyrim. I don't mind if they start out as a prince or whatever, and then takes up fighting against the wishes of his family, but I hate when a person starts off as 'normal' and it's only down the line when we realize that they're different, with some ancestry that's only just coming in to play now. It seems like a cop-out to make the character different that the rest, or more special, rather than having it done through their actions, or being at the right place at the right time.

It's probably why there are so many shit fics that involving boosting HP's power, or changing his ancestry.

Perhaps it's just easier to identify with a commoner. And if that's why, perhaps that's why it so much more entertaining to watch him rise against every obstacle and to overcome, or perhaps be humbled. The only thing that the guy really has to be is lucky, or have a good sense of survival, so when his tragically cliche event is done, he's the only survivor, or was out getting water or something. Maybe I just prefer the whole 'saving the land' story line instead of the 'ascending to the throne to right the injustices and living happily ever after' one.

 

While I appreciate the good old farm boy!hero as much as any bloke, I do not dislike protagonists being special in some way beyond the common man. Why? Because I think the line between commoner!hero and special!hero is very blurry.

The way I see it, a commoner is a member of the masses, a person you could randomly pick out from a mob of people. But then, most protagonists spend their days protecting the mobs of people, or doing things the masses are too scared/unable to do. The simple fact that they can sets them apart. They have something the average man doesn't, be it courage, determination, an unshakeable set of morals etc. It may be plot armor that allows a commoner!hero to go through all his challenges but even that I feel sets him apart.

Even in stories that are supposed to be about commoner!hero, the everyman, I never really buy it because I know that not everybody would do what he does. So, in a sense, it kind of makes sense to find out that the hero is special in x or y way because that would explain what sets him apart from the masses enough to do what the protagonist does. Sometimes it's royal blood, sometimes it's destiy/fate/prophesy etc.

That said, I understand that it is a personal preference, and I also understand how people who like commoner!hero get annoyed when they turn out to be special. I'm not sure I've read anything where the protagonist actually stays a commoner.

Edit: Also, in answer to that question, I'd personally pick no before I picked yes. I feel like the common man, as I see them around me and around the world, do not make good hero material, and a story featuring any of them would not be to my liking.

 

I believe it is a mixture of wish-fulfillment and laziness on part of the authors. Wish-fulfillment, because who doesn't secretly dream of being told "ye're a prince, Harry" and getting to rule kneeling peasants with an iron fist. Laziness, because it's an easy shortcut for the hero to become (politically) powerful and accepted.
It's also kind of racist, since apparently the hero is the hero because of his breeding rather than his choices and actions. (Or, his choice and actions are a result of his breeding)

I think it's also often used simply because it is such a common theme, and there are no original ideas. Much like fantasy pretty much equals elves and dwarfs. The German word "Fantasie" means both fantasy and imagination - it seems however that fantasy nowadays has little to do with imagination

In essence, the hero should be special because of what he does, rather than because of what he is.

 

As with so many problems in the current fantasy wave, I think you can blame Tolkien. Or, more correctly, Tolkien's immitators.

We get Aragorn, a man of 'high blood,' doing remarkable things and being welcomed back to the throne by his subjects happily, and from then on, every human hero had to be a long-lost prince, or a noble in hiding among the masses, who through his exposure to the 'lesser men' is reminded of his own humanity and duty to protect and care for his subjects.

I think it's a valid character arc, but it has also been done to death.

Hell, even Luke Skywalker, ostensibly a farm boy with big dreams and only one little talent, ends up being related to the Dark Prince of the galaxy.

Much is made of Batman not having any superpowers, but he's stupid rich and even in Batman Begins, is referred to as 'the prince of Gotham' (albeit sarcastically).

I think the problem with allowing an actual commoner to become the hero is that then, anybody could do it, and the question becomes, why didn't anybody do it before? if anyone could rise up and challenge the evil conquering immortal lord anytime in the last thousand years, why hasn't anyone yet?

There has to be something inherently special about the hero, or it seems that there is nothing special about him/her. And if they aren't special, then why would we care?

The secret to pulling off a story where the hero is a genuine nobody would be focussing on why this hero suddenly has a chance when anyone else who would have tried before would have failed. As was said, the short-cut explanation is, "He's a better breed."

Personally, I think that's bullshit. I think every generation and damn near every town has at least someone within it who is perfectly normal, and average, but who, given the right circumstances, could rise up and become something greater - the problem, then, isn't blood, but circumstance.

Putting emphasis on someone's heritage is useless, as far as I'm concerned - I am not my ancestors. Just because my great-grandfather ended up a drunkard and a prisoner, doesn't mean I will - so why the fuck would I end up a King just because he was?

Everyone must stand on their own, ultimately. Everyone gets to make their own choices and take responsibility for their own actions; We have to believe that, or else we would be validating the caste system and forcing people to follow in their parents' footsteps, never growing, never changing, never becoming anything greater.

tl;dr: Have to believe anyone, not just royalty, can be heroes, or there's really no point in having commoners.

 

This discussion reminded me of my thoughts about what makes the royalty better than anyone else in the fantasy. Nothing really and as was said, it's usually just a shortcut to make someone seem special. But it would be interesting to have a story where being from the royalty actually makes you a better person than a commoner (and not just by giving you some unique powers).

Also, I prefer to read about characters who start from the ground and reach the heaven without getting a boost from their suddenly discovered ancestry. If anything it would be more fun to see them fake this reveal once they realize that they need it to achieve their goals.

 

Ah man. I really, really dislike the whole "I'm the third son of Chub the Mighty ruler of fucksville" deal. I'm with most everyone else in that regards it seems. It's really been done to death by this point. That said I think there's still some room to work with among the monarchy. As long as the protagonist doesn't necessarily become a leader of armies I think I'd give it a read. I mean, if we have some kid from a low ranking noble family as a survivor of a political assassination or something - I wouldn't really mind under a couple of circumstances.

1) The protagonist should be driven, but not necessarily to become king. Just murdering the people behind the assassination (or whatever) would be fine.
2) The character arch ends realistically. If we continue with the revenge motif, then the most logical trajectory after resolution is probably death.

You could make this more interesting by having multiple people survive. Some who want to rule (who fail possibly) or people who want nothing more than to be left alone.

I've never really felt that the whole exiled/ undiscovered royal to ruler arch has been that realistic. I'd actually like to read something where the protagonist is completely inept at ruling despite his/her lineage but who has a common born friend who excels at it. Provided the protagonist never actual rules anyway.

As for the discussion about a normal hero with no "special" characteristics - I'm inclined to agree with Little Chicago. If you have an average protagonist who ends up saving the Kingdom/ ruling it then, why didn't someone else do it before? I've been re-reading The Black Company lately and I really like how Croaker and his lot are really soldiers first and foremost. It's not really an origin story and it does have its flaws (no one reaaaally important dieing for one) but everyone in the company does come across as pretty normal for people doing the sort of work they've been tasked with. I guess you could actually argue that all that makes Croaker different from his comrades (other than empathy) is a love of history and the opportunity to nurture it.

 

I lean towards Jim's view. I think it's a matter of circumstance.

You get the nobody from a lost bloodline. Why is he the one that rises? Why not his father? If every ancestor is descended from the same King, why is the protagonist the one that shines?

If the writer is bad/lazy, it's because something awakens inside of him. You've seen this before. One morning the farmer's adopted son can plough the field with a twenty-foot rake while masturbating with his left. Cool.

Then there's the other path. Circumstance drives the protagonist inexorably towards the spotlight. Aragorn came from a line of Kings, but as of the last few hundred years his family had been rangers. He was a ranger too, a nobody. But his own morals don't let him stand aside while shit happens all over middle-earth. His father or grandfather could've wielded the same sword without problem, but it was up to him to do it because of circumstance.

That's all history is; people being in the right place at the right time. We like to hear about the climax of a story. Nobody cares how Red Ridinghood cooked the meal for her grandmother. We wanna see if she gets fucking eaten in the forest while delivering it.

TL;DR: Circumstance. As a royal prince or heir, the protagonist is in a unique position where he is forced to act, maybe for selfish reasons, maybe not. Doesn't have to be necesarily royalty that works as the plot device, but it's the most popular trope in the genre for a reason: it's easy and it works.

 

I think his low birth might be one of my big draws to Kote really, The Edema Ruh have a strong culture, and aren't at all high born, it's amazing.

Not to mention that Rothfuss wrote one of the only likable Gary Stu's ever.

 

Just wait until Kvothe's mother turns out to be related to Melurian Lackless(sp?) then he won't be so low born.

 

Nah, Kvothe is totally Selitos reborn, fated to destroy the Chandrian.

 

This reminds me that plot devices like prophecies, or anything relating to a character's fate, are the same thing as the royal blood device. Does it matter whether or not Kvothe is a reborn monarch or God, if he's already got a prophecy naming him as a savior or destroyer? Maybe in-universe it's different, because other characters would say "Hey, he's not a king, yet he's still The One". But out-of-universe, it's just another form of the royalty device.

Same thing as Harry Potter. JKR may have tried to 'deconstruct' it by having Harry not like being made special, but she still couldn't resist having him made special. At the end of the day, Dumbledore telling him the prophecy is synonymous with Tavi learning his father was the crown prince.

It may not be easy to criticize, because in both cases, the stories of Harry and Tavi begin from the prophecy and royal birth, so people can argue "That's what Voldemort came after Harry in the first place". I guess it comes back to what Lulzing said.

Of course, we can't go too far. We can't object to everything that makes a character special, like being apprenticed to a legendary wizard, or getting a special sword. But going so far as to make someone royalty, or actually writing the character's specialness into casuality and fate, is kind of egregous and absurd when I think about it.

 

Nailed it on the head. I don't mind it so much if some ordinary farm boy ends up drawing a sword or gaining access to some special kind of power due to the virtue of his character or something like that. In fact the coolest way an author explained it once in an HP fanfic I read where Harry acquired some different power was literally saying "you were the closest one around I could give my power to Harry". I mean I prefer pure chance even as opposed to being royalty because that means that the character is the main character at least kind of because of his actions, rather than by the virtue of his parents. I love imagining that if I was in that world, I could imagine such a sequence of events happening to me - but if it's because the character is royalty - well then I can't.

However what's even worse is when the character you follow or play more or less becomes some servant to royalty. This happened to me when I was playing Final Fantasy XII, where literally EVERYONE was more important than Vaan in some way.

 

I don't think that there's an inherent problem with the hero being a long lost prince, or the last king's great-great-great-however many times grandson, and whatnot. What there is a problem with, sometimes, is the execution of the idea. But just because some people use it as a cheap and easy way to make their character seem awesome doesn't mean that it's all bad.