Something fundamentally bothers me about people's repetitive insistence that heroic characters are incapable of retiring, as a way to defend death as being a logical ending for a story.

I think this has become a disturbing trend, & I think the message it sends is a bad one.

+

Heroism has or is quickly becoming synonymous with "selflessness to the point of destruction." A character is shown to be traumatized, burdened, struggling with suicidal ideation... & we are expected to NOT want to see them triumph rather than die or regress? Why?

This is not the deep or interesting concept people think it is. The idea of "a hero would never retire because they ALWAYS want to help" fundamentally forgets that humanizing a character is multifaceted & it includes these aspects: humans get tired, & there are many ways to help.

Framing retirement & (to use the term loosely) "self-care" as a moral failing is a bad message to send. Helping others to the point of burning out & DYING yourself is not a radical story concept & has been overdone. Subverting that, however? That's impactful, & too rare.

We deserve stories where heroes aren't unhealthy & know how & when to retire for the sake of their well-being. We need to see examples of people who are forces for good but know when it's time to step back, & get to. We deserve to see that heroism does not REQUIRE extremes.

Otherwise, what is the message? Suffer, struggle against horrible things, acknowledge you need help, wrestle with self-hatred... & only once you have given EVERYTHING you have of yourself through death/sacrifice are you truly heroic.
All or nothing.
I don't like those odds.

There are times for stories that are about sacrifice as penance for wrongdoings. There are times for stories that are epic tragedies. But those times are not as frequent as I feel people believe, yet heroic stories are too often all being painted with the same brush.

If you have a story where a character starts out wanting or expecting to die, & struggles for years to try to identify & overcome from that feeling or circumstance... having death be their ending is cyclical. It makes the journey feel pointless. Why struggle, to lose in the end?

& beyond that: why equate heroism with only extremes? "A hero would never sit on the sidelines." Sure, but impact does not have to be physical. There is nuance possible there. A hero can mentor others to continue to work & provide a safe harbor. A hero can, & should, rest.

& that kind of heroism? That's fundamental to humanity. Our everyday heroes are rarely those who are destructive to themselves or others; they are the builders & healers, the caretakers & therapists, the generous & caring. They are those who survive hardship & learn to love life.

If that's what heroism is in real life, why can it not be good enough for a story?

Death should not be the main heroic ending characters can have–& in many stories, it makes less sense.

Hope & triumph? Passing the torch willingly?
If you ask me... that's often a better outcome.

We crave peace in life rather than peace in death, for ourselves & others. We identify with heroic characters & care for them as "people." When they are humanized, we want the best for them like we would any other human.

It's not unreasonable to expect stories to reflect that.