- Invitation Status
- Posting Speed
- One post per day
- 1-3 posts per week
- One post per week
- Writing Levels
- Adept
- Advanced
- Adaptable
- Preferred Character Gender
- Male
- Primarily Prefer Male
- Genres
- Fantasy, GrimDark, ModFan, Horror, Historical, D&D, Lovecraft
THE HERO'S JOURNEY
sing your death song and die like a hero going home -- tecumseh
WHAT IS A HERO ?
The hero is a tricky thing, particularly in roleplay - where every player is controlling a hypothetical protagonist. No one character should be the protagonist in the traditional sense - it is not solely that character's story. Rather, it's the story of the entire group. Nonetheless, there is a tendency amongst players, and GMs, to treat their own player character in a roleplay as if they were the "hero", regardless of their role in the story, or their relationship with the central conflict. But the truth of the matter, is that the definition of "hero" is nebulous at best - and even its etymology remains a subject of debate. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language claims that the Indo-European root is *ser meaning "to protect". This becomes the Greek "her", which is the root for both the goddess Hera, and the modern "hero." However, other words have meant hero as well, including the Latin hapax legomenon; "aeglaecum", which appears in Beowulf. This word - subject of many scholarly essays including my own - is used to refer to Beowulf, the monster Grendel, and Grendel's mother interchangeably. Clearly, these disparate elements must have something in common, if they are to be called "hero."
"Hero" is such a problematic word that academic circles seem to prefer "protagonist", particularly in works with a heavy sense of realism - or morally ambiguous characters. However, there is an inherent moral ambiguity to the word "hero" -- anyone familiar with the goddess Hera can tell you that she was never the most morally upright goddess. The Indo-European root simply means "to protect", with all fo the ambiguity that entails. Was Beowulf defending the King and his hall? Was Grendel protecting himself and his mother? "Hero" is an inherently morally ambiguous word - but in modern heroic culture, the "hero" has taken on connotations of "good", or moral. That good or moral descriptor has been broken down into countless labels. That's not for a lack of trying; TV Tropes has named a number of distinct heroic archetypes. Their list is quite extensive, covering diverse and particular tropes in heroic characters - The Failure Knight is unique in its characterization it fulfills, for example, and the The Retired Badass has little in common with it on the surface. Both are quite different than the Pink Heroine. But these tropes dance around the definition of the hero. They are descriptors of external characteristics, not the character's role within a larger narrative framework.
Joseph Campbell, an American mythologist and literary theorist, proposed the idea of the monomyth. The monomyth suggests that all mythology featuring a "hero" follows along the same trajectory. In his introduction to his groundbreaking work, "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", Campbell summarizes his theory: "A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man."From Campbell's definition, we can see that the hero is an exceptional individual, who has gained powers from the magical journey that they have taken part in. The mundanity of the man is overwhelmed by the supernatural supremacy of the hero. This is obviously a dangerous idea; heroes are fundamentally super-human. They have been granted supernatural or mysterious power, which - while they can grant this power to others - no other human can possibly stop them. It's a terrifying thought.
In my Guide to Grimdark, I began with a quote from Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, and it seems relevant to reiterate it here; "Beware of heroes." Herbert, in Dune and its sequels, grappled with Campbell's understanding of the hero as a source of great gifts - what Campbell calls "boons" - but the hero could also be a source of conflict, calamity, and even utter armageddon. The hero is not like us; and Tolkein suggested that the greatest tragedy of Beowulf was that he remained, in his heart of hearts - a man, which conflicted with the superhuman elements of his heroic personality.
Regardless of intention, all player characters within a roleplay are exceptional. The most average and normal characters are made exceptional by the circumstances that they find themselves in, the agency that they display, and the greatness that surrounds them. However, not every character in a roleplay is equal, in terms of their heroism, their stage of the hero's journey, or in the results of their actions. By defining what a hero is, it is possible to come to a greater understanding about the role of the player characters within roleplay and provide strategies for GMs to enrich their narratives. More important than just understanding is the idea that heroics can be played with, leading to a monomyth that does not reach it standard conclusion. Only when the trope is understood, can the trope be truly subverted.
The Hero's Journey is the monomyth; what narratologists believe to be at the root of all narrative. Although critics of the Hero's Journey suggest that it is too broad to be applied usefully, they are speaking from the standpoint of comparative mythology. For the writer, the Hero's Journey represents a useful framework for the type of epic stories told in many of the roleplays found throughout the site. Understanding the Hero must begin with an understanding of the hero's journey, and although Campbell was not alone in defining it, all agree that the hero's journey consists of three distinct parts; The Departure, the Initiation, and the Return. These are further broken down into subcategories that differ upon the narratologist who analyzes them.
THE DEPARTURE
Christopher Vogler, in his introduction to Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" in 2007 made an important distinction about heroic origins. The hero's story begins in what Vogler referred to as "The Ordinary World." The Ordinary World is the more mundane, less magical, more sheltered and more safe environment that the hero initially finds themselves in. Fable, the 2004 video game, begins in a tiny farming village for a reason. The hero starting at a farm or otherwise non-descript location, like Luke Skywalker, like Harry Potter, like Frodo, establishes the hero's lack of knowledge about the outside world. But, it also marks them out special for a seemingly bizarre reason; the hero is a blank slate. Certainly, Luke, Harry, Frodo, and even Fable's mute protagonist have the traces of a personality; but they have no story yet. Their personalities are just surface level, because they have yet to experience anything beyond their standard life.
In some senses, I feel as if the Departure is the most key part of the Hero's Journey, and the one that is most neglected by roleplayers. I am guilty of it as well; writing a three to four page backstory that is almost an entirely complete Hero's Journey even of itself. This concept will be something I address as this guide continues; how much the backstory is a constraint and crutch, rather than a tool. The problem with the backstory is that it robs the player-character of the agency of The Departure. Since the character's Departure happens "off screen" (i.e. in their backstory), the other players do not have the opportunity to see how the character actively responds to the trauma of the Departure.
Don't be mistaken; The Departure is a traumatic event. During this act of the Hero's Journey, the hero is called to go on his adventure, and this is often done through a forceful separation or violation of the Ordinary World. In Fable, this manifests in the bandit raid on the simple farming village where the Hero lives. The Hero's Ordinary World is torn asunder. Likewise, Luke Skywalker is enticed to adventure by the appearance of the droids, by Obi Wan Kenobi's mentoring, but he nonetheless refuses this call. And that is where the second part of this trauma comes into play; The Refusal and subsequent Acceptance of the Call to Adventure. One of the great tragedies of the Hero in Campbell's eyes is that the initial refusal of the cause results in a traumatic death or violence for those that exist around the hero. In Fable, the mute Hero's family must die, in order for the Hero's destiny to be fulfilled. Luke Skywalker's farm must be destroyed, and his aunt and uncle burned to death by the Empire. Not only does this sever the hero from the world that they have grown accustomed to ; but it also provides valuable motivation for their journey.
THE INTIATION
Through the nature of roleplay, submitting a character sheet to the OOC thread is, in itself, a fulfillment of the Call to Adventure. The character's tragic backstory, which is a trope on its own, has been written. In the second part of the journey, the character will be tested. This is called The Initiation. During this portion of the Hero's Journey, the hero will meet his allies and enemies, will journey along a road where he will be tempted to do evil, and where he will gain powers that he did not have before. This is where Luke Skywalker learns how to use his powers, and meets up with Han Solo, Leia, and later on - Yoda. I am a strong believer that this is the point where most roleplays should begin. Afterall, when a roleplay begins, especially in group roleplays, the first few posts concern getting to know the other characters within the world, and the rules of this world. Joseph Campbell, again in The Hero with A Thousand Faces, emphasizes the importance of the character coming to understand their reality. Luke must learn the ways of the Force, and while a character in a roleplay may already know the world's rules; the player doesn't. Therefore, in some sense this stage of the Hero's Journey is just as important for the player as it is for the character, if not more so.
As I said before, I'm guilty of writing full Hero's Journeys to serve as the background for my character. But if a character's quest - vengeance or at least, justice, for those who were claimed by the Refusal of the Call - is already completed, where can the hero go from there? I think that it is logical for roleplays, D&D campaigns, and any form of collaborative story-telling to begin with the Initiation. The most recent event in a character's submitted backstory, in my opinion, should be the event that gives them the most motivation to take part in the roleplay: The Refusal -and the consequences of that refusal. For a very basic example, consider the following template: The player character (henceforth refererd to as PC Hero) has been directly wronged by the evil that you, the GM, have created. This event has torn from the events of their backstory, by an upheaval enacted by the primary antagonist of the RP, either directly or indirectly. Their family is either dead, or far away, or somehow estranged from the PC Hero. The RP starts with the PC Heroes, banded together against the thing that wronged them all.
This template can be applied to many different scenarios, and does not need to be as black and white as I have stipulated in this example. The evil that the GM is in-charge of can vary. As I discussed in my Guide to Conflict; those evils can be any of the "Big 5" modes of conflict. Whether that evil is a man, nature, the supernatural, technology, or the self, the players must have a motivation to destroy it. What better way to do this, than to have the player and the character have a personal desire to resolve their PC Hero's' Journey? If a character's background is a complete story cycle onto itself, there is no point for that character to be part of a roleplay. As Joseph Campbell would have surely agreed, the character does not need to develop any further, as they have completed the three act structure of the Hero's Journey. Therefore, a helpful tools for GMs and for players is to consider what stage of the Journey will most likely lead to both a satisfying arc for their character, and lead to a reason for a character to take part in the development of the story. One way to do that is through the above template. But what happens when the hero takes part in the story?
THE QUEST
As I suggested in my Guide to Conflict, roleplays are not like literature. In a RP, when a GM introduces conflict in their story, they are often releasing their control on the narrative. However, the narrative can be controlled with the introduction of the idea of "The Quest." "The Quest" here refers to the notion of a self-directed mission that, while laid out by the GM's ever-helpful allies - the NPCs - the characters are intrinsically motivated to take part in the quest. Likely, the reason they are motivated to do this is because of their backstory, and their "slight" by the evil that the GM has introduced into their world. But the GM must give the character's direction through either narrative clues, or the more straight-forward model of a "Quest-giver", otherwise it can become uncertain whether or not the characters will engage in the quest at all. Characters, without direction, will inevitably split apart and undertake their own personal directives. Even if unified by common purpose, method can vary wildly from character to character.
Thus, for the GM to gain control of the quest, the aforementioned "Quest-giver" can be helpful. The "Quest-giver" is found in Joseph Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces in the form of the "Meeting with the Mentor". Although this is technically part of Act One of the Hero's Journey - it is my opinion that in the context of roleplay that the "Meeting with the Mentor" should be classified as part of the "Initiation" -- and more specifically, occur within the first post of the roleplay. This is where the Gm has the opportunity to direct the characters through an NPC surrogate, and this is an opportunity that should not be squandered. Vladimir Propp, a narratologist and folklorist, defined this stage as Sphere Three of his own folkloric model - the 31 elements of a story. He called this phase the "Donor Phase". The Donor refers to the same character as Campbell's Mentor. This is the figure that according to Propp, that tests the Hero. Before the hero can proceed further on their journey, they must first prove themselves worthy. This initiates the "Quest" sequence within the narrative - and in roleplay. This is usually a small task that the PC Heroes must accomplish. The task is given by the Donor or some other gatekeeper - the Mentor figure - who will reward the hero. In Propp's model, the Mentor either rewards the Heroes with some magical item, or critical information which aids the Hero on their quest.
In roleplay, the completion of this task if how the characters will not only prove themselves as PC Heroes, and begin the development that will continue through the roleplay. This is also a good time for the GM to solidify these characters as truly exceptional. As I want to continue to reinforce - the Hero's Journey is not for everyone, and it is possible to fail this journey. Some people never are called to adventure, or continue to refuse the call. In order for the PC Heroes to truly become Heroes, they must show themselves to be truly extra-ordinary, somewhat removed from the world. The assumption if, of course, that these characters succeed at their task. Ideal tasks are ones that test not only the character's martial skills, but also their motives, and personality. In the Lord of the Rings, I would argue tha the Secret Council of Elrond provides a valuable example. All of the others at the Council argue and squabble amongst themselves - all suspect to the will of the Ring. But Frodo asserts himself, albeit reluctantly, and he is chosen. This action shows that his purity of heart and the strength of his will are both greater than even the greatest men of his time. Following the test completed, the story may continue into the next phase of the quest: what Vogler refers to as the "Innermost Cave," and what Campbell calls "The Road of Trials".
TRIALS AND TRANSFORMATION
The Innermost Cave - or the The Road of Trials - are the series of events that drive the Hero closer to his goal. These events are transformative for the Hero, and as such, should be transformative for the PC Heroes as well. These events are intended to challenge, and change, the Heroes as they get closer and closer to their ultimate goal of stopping whatever Evil the GM has introduced. Campbell summarizes this stage with the following comments: "The original departure into the land of trials represented only the beginning of the long and really perilous path of initiatory conquests and moments of illumination. Dragons have now to be slain and surprising barriers passed — again, again, and again. Meanwhile there will be a multitude of preliminary victories, unretainable ecstasies and momentary glimpses of the wonderful land." In the context of roleplay, these momentary glimpses of "the wonderful land" are not just looks into the interworking of the world-building, but also foreshadowing and opportunities to confront the evils that the dog the PC Hero's steps.
When the Hero approaches the "Innermost Cave", as Vogler calls it, they have already been changed by their Journey. They have acquired magical help, and have grown more powerful than they ever were before. They are somewhat detached from the world that they once knew. As they approach the Innermost Cave, they face their greatest challenge yet - and they cross another threshold. In The Lord of the Rings, this is Frodo and Sam's journey through Mordor - this is where the PC Heroes come close to their goal, but still must find it. Without the road to the final destination, there would be no tension - no arc. This road to the "Innermost Cave" builds tension and develops the characters of the PC Heroes. In modern gaming terminology - this could be the series of Mini-Bosses before the Boss themselves, or the final "zone" of random encounters before the Boss itself is encountered. However, what modern gaming often fails to do, and the Roleplay can do is address the most important aspect of the "Innermost Cave."
There must be the knowledge of certain death. Unlike in video games, where a character can respawn and start over, roleplay doesn't offer the same way out. The threat of annihilation must hang in the air. When the "Innermost Cave" confronts the PC Heroes, they are tested on the basis of their humanity. Vogel describes it as: " To approach the innermost cave is to face death and still go on. This pause helps show the hero as still human and helps build the story tension before the high point of the story." However - I disagree with this analysis. I believe that this moment is when the Hero proves that they are not human anymore - or shows how far from Human they have truly become. They are tested on the basis of "fearlessness". And is there anything more natural than the Flight or Fight response? As The Order of the Stick - a webcomic that often deconstructs D&D and narrative tropes - states: a Hero that is immune to fear, and continues on their quest without fear is unnatural. Somewhere along the Road of Trials the Hero has ceased to be burdened with the same human failings that the rest of us endure. It is up to the GM of a roleplay to show the contrast from where the Hero has come from, and the Hero that their PCs are now, in order for the final test to truly sink in. Despite the risk of losing everything - the PC Heroes must continue on, and face their destiny - even with the threat of failure.
Likewise, this is also an opportunity for the GM to show what happens to failed heroes. If the PC Heroes' fail in their initial task - they are not suited to be heroes, and that failure should be marked and responded to in a way that doesn't coddle either the characters or the players. Yes, no GM wants their players to "lose" -- but the Hero is not a title to be taken lightly. At least, not in my personal opinion. But what if your heroes do fail? If that happens, a different sort of journey can be undertaken.
THE QUEST FAILED
The Villain's Journey is a relatively modern concept, but the overlap with the Hero's Journey is striking. The difference between the Hero and Villain's Journey is both in how the steps of the journey look in retrospect - when a Villain is understood to be a Villain - and the choices that the Villain makes. Heroes, at their core, are reactionary. Villains, on the other hand, are proactive, and this is reflected in their journey. However, I would argue that the most crucial difference between Villain and Hero in terms of the Hero's Journey is failure. When, in a roleplay, the crucial Path of Trials, and the Innermost Caves, the PCs fail, or make bad choices, the GM is put in a unique position : one where he can show the results of their PC Heroes' actions, and how those actions change their overall narrative. There are several crucial points where "The Quest" can become "The Quest - Failed."
The Figure of the Mentor, and the Mentor's Task, can be a particularly damning moment. If the character's refuse the task, or conduct it in a distasteful way, that can be enough to brand them as villains to the very forces that were intended to aid them later on. However, a GM can be even more tricky. Presenting the Heroes with a task that is truly loathsome or "evil" can provide an engaging moral quandary. In the Villain's Journey, the Mentor or the Donor becomes something else entirely; The Devil on the Shoulder á la Senator Palpatine in the Star Wars prequels. If the characters perform the task as their Mentor figure outlines, even if it is evil, they have failed this stage of the journey and are more susceptible to further corruption. As well, the guilt that the PC Heroes feel after this action can be manipulated - tragedy touches the Villain, unlike the Hero who is merely followed by it. Alternatively, if they refuse to do the vile act, or subvert it in some way - they have proved themselves pure of heart and can continue along the traditional Hero's Journey.
Regards of the means or time, there is always an inciting event which begins a character's slow descent into evil. Within the Villain's Journey, this event is referred to as the "First Offense." Either prompted by a Mentor, or incited by guilt or tragedy - the Hero is still responsible for engaging in this destructive and often violent action. Consider Anakin's slaughter of the Sand People in Episode II of Star Wars. This deed began a different sort of heroic transformation - into Darth Vader. While the Road of Trials can transform Heroes into powerful agents of good, it is possible for the Heroes to stumble, and become a dark reflection of themselves.
And, at a certain point - the Hero crosses another threshold. Rather than cross into the "Innermost Cave" the Hero-turned-Villain crosses over the "Point of No Return". Whether or not the Villain's crimes are punished or even known, the Villain feels no remorse for his deeds. This is the fundamental failure of the Hero, and an indication of their own lack of humanity. Whereas, the Innermost Cave stage reveals that the Hero has transcended humanity through fearlessness, the Point of No Return reveals that the Hero has lost their humanity through a lack of soul and morality. The Villain feels justified in their actions. My personal favourite example of this comes from none other than Arthas Menethil, from the Warcraft franchise. The following quote seems to summarize the mentality of the "Point of No Return" better than I ever could: "Yes, I've damned everyone and everything I've ever loved in his name, and I still feel no remorse. No shame. No pity." He has entirely crossed over - and he has done it because of loss, because of his own failures.
THE TEMPTATION
Crucial to the Hero's and Villain's journey is the idea of "Temptation." Joseph Campbell describes the idea as such; "But when it suddenly dawns on us, or is forced to our attention that everything we think or do is necessarily tainted with the odor of the flesh, then, not uncommonly, there is experienced a moment of revulsion: life, the acts of life, the organs of life, woman in particular as the great symbol of life, become intolerable to the pure, the pure, pure soul. The seeker of the life beyond life must press beyond (the woman), surpass the temptations of her call, and soar to the immaculate ether beyond." Although this is a somewhat complex (and misogynistic) conceit - Campbell is suggesting that the hero cannot at any given time, give into his base desires. But, that the hero must be tempted with it, in order for them to reveal their purity. This is just another of the many tests that the Hero faces on their journey. At any time during the Road of Trials, the Innermost Cave, or even during the final confrontation, there is an element of temptation at play. A temptation to flee, or to engage in evil deeds. And if the hero gives in - they have taken their first steps on the Villain's Journey.
The GM of a RP as a responsibility to tempt his players, because without this temptation, the hero is not truly tested. There has to be the idea that evil is appealing to people. In the Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and Warcraft, the respective villains of these franchises are tempted by the power of the Dark - and they fall to their temptation. They are told that they have the opportunity to make the world a better place - or that this is the only way that they will survive. These are reasonable motivations for taking the evil path, and these options must be presented to the PC Heroes as well. They must be tested, after-all, before they face their final foe.
"The Supreme Ordeal" is what Vogler calls the confrontation with the object of the Hero's Journey - the great evil that the DM has unleashed upon the world. This is summarized by Vogler in the following way; "This is the ultimate test that the hero takes, where the real story perhaps is the inner battle whereby the hero overcomes their own demons in facing up to the enemy outside." The battle is both internal and external, and the element of temptation is present here as well. The hero can fail here as well, and become a Villain -- this can be the Point of No Return. However, this can also be a moment of triumph for the Hero - where the final temptation is denied. Although Joseph Campbell calls this "Atonement with the Father" - the point is that this overwhelming, often patriarchal force, has been confronted and either redeemed or confronted. Luke has this moment with Darth Vader in Star Wars, where he accepts him as a father, and makes a final choice : to save him. If Luke had killed him, given into his rage, he would have become part of the Dark Side -- and that would have been the start of his Villain's Journey.
Even when killing the greatest threat, what started the Hero on their journey to begin with - the Hero can fail and fall. A clever GM can play with their players' motivations, and force them to truly hate the evils in their world -- only to test their morality in the final confrontation. This sort of RP is amongst the most rewarding, in my opinion. If the Hero fails, it becomes tragedy, if the Hero succeeds -- it becomes myth. The Hero achieves Apotheosis and the Final Boon. The Hero has transformed into a new state -- a superhuman one, where fear is a distant memory and they are capable of even greater feats. Although the reward can often be an external reward, the most important boon is the resistance against temptation the Hero showed, and the Hero's inner growth and development.
THE RETURN
The final stage of the Hero's Journey is the Return. When the Hero - or even Villain! - returns to their homeland, they are often unrecognizable at first. They have been so changed by their journies, and their magical prowess and wealth is so great, that the "conventional" world has become distant to them. Although this is rarely covered in either fiction or RP - the fate of a hero is a traumatic one. The Hero has undergone more violence, change, and temptation, than likely any other person that they know. Consider Peter Jackson's filmed adaptation of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. When the Hobbits return to The Shire, they are almost unrecognizable from their peers in their elven cloaks. While Sam, Merry, and Pippin are able to assimilate into the world of the Shire - Frodo isn't. He is now Frodo the Nine-Fingered with a wound on his chest that aches no matter what he attempts to do; he has been physically traumatized as a result of his transformative journey. And for this reason, he is unable to truly return. He instead goes into The West with the elves - the Undying Lands. The fate of Frodo cements that the Hero has been changed so much by his experiences that he is no longer part of the human world, and thus - must exit the narrative, so that a new narrative can begin.
The Return is where the journey, and the roleplay, must end. Although the PC Heroes have likely grown incredibly in power, and have the ability to return to the people mentioned in their backstories and make their lives better - the story must end here. There are two reasons why: the first is a practical one. The PC Heroes likely come from all over the place, and at this point, the "Fellowship" between the heroes is now broken. Following each individual PC Hero - forcing the GM to RP dozens of NPCs - can be a taxing chore. The second reason is a purely narratological one; the story has ended, and dragging it with the long back and forth of (and often slow) RP posts makes for a dull conclusion. On the other hand, the PC Heroes have worked hard to Earn Their Happy Ending, as TV Tropes puts it. A series of player written epilogues can provides the conclusion that the players deserve. The PC Heroes can return to their families, save their friends, mourn their kinsmen - whatever needs to be done. But there should always be the element of trauma under the surface - the idea that the hero has been utterly changed. But what if they changed for the worse?
For a villain - the Hero's Journey doesn't end with "The Point of No Return". The Villain-Hero has gone through a point of transformation, and now - they have their own journey to take part in, with its own trials. In some ways, a PC Hero that fails is an ideal way for a GM to continue the story that they have developed. New characters can take place of the old - or the PC Heroes can change their directive towards their old friend. The PC Hero-Villain can escape - and the RP can continue in a sequel, where new heroes must fight the last vestiges of the old Fellowship which has turned rotten and corrupted. The journey doesn't end, when a hero fails. It begins again, cyclically. There must always be a hero - just as there must always be a villain.
THE JOURNEY ENDS
Joseph Campbell's "Hero with a Thousand Faces" received international acclaim, and has influenced countless writers and artists, not to mention narratologists and mythologists. Nonetheless, the work has received its share of criticism as well, including from such fantasy titans as Neil Gaiman. Of course, the belief that there is a monomyth itself leads to its share of problems. Gaiman's criticism of the text reads as follows; "I think I got about half way through The Hero with a Thousand Faces and found myself thinking if this is true—I don't want to know. I really would rather not know this stuff. I'd rather do it because it's true and because I accidentally wind up creating something that falls into this pattern than be told what the pattern is." However, this comment betrays the importance of knowing the intricacies of the Journey. Without knowledge of the common tropes, an author cannot possibly hope to subvert them, or play with them in any meaningful way. It is my opinion that "Hero with a Thousand Faces" and the Hero's Journey, provide an invaluable tool-box for the player and GM alike, in order to structure and develop their RPs and stories.
I suspect that there will be the inevitable cry from some players that by suggesting GMs use the Hero's Journey I am somehow responsible for "railroading them" to a specific narrative mode. I would like to stress what I have touched on throughout this guide: player's choices matter. The PC Hero can entirely change their narrative, depending on whether they give into temptation, are swayed by the Dark, or cross the Point of No Return. The player remains in charge of the fate of the PC Hero, regardless of whether or not the GM imposes the structure of the Journey upon their roleplay. And, I believe that through understanding the intricacies of the The Journey, a player can explore the psychology and development of their characters that they may not have been capable of before. Afterall, it is the journey that matters, not the destination.