So, scheming isn't allowed, tricking people isn't allowed, and being dishonest isn't allowed, if one wants to remain heroic? Because that would exclude a lot of characters from being considered heroic, including classical heroes like Zorro and modern superheroes like Batman. These are people who spend a lot of time pretending to be something they're not, often even faking friendship with their enemies as an information-gathering tool. If that's not "scheming", I don't know what else it is, and yet I would be very skeptical of anybody who said they weren't heroes.
You're taking what I said to an illogical extreme, and I believe you're mistaken in two separate ways.
The first is not that any kind of slightly bad-sounding action is therefore turbo illegal for Heroes. It's the way it's done. Scheming
with the explicit intent to murder people who believe you are helping them is capital 'E' Evil. Scheming to out-think a Villain obviously isn't. Tricking people into thinking you are helping them, just so you can use them before you slip the knife into their ribs is Evil. Misdirecting people isn't. Being dishonest isn't inherently evil, as just like the other things, it depends on what you're being dishonest about and how.
At what points do Zorro and Batman disguise themselves and mislead others for an extended period of time, selling a lie, to get close to a target before murdering them? I'm admittedly less familiar with Zorro, but I don't think he did anything like that.
Also, none of that is the point, and this is the first thing I think you're mistaken about. Just because it's bad doesn't mean it's
illegal for heroes to do. Heroes in the setting can lie, and cheat, and steal - even when it's not really justifiable in the context. That they couldn't wasn't the argument. The argument is that when they do those things,
they have to fight against the narrative of the world. They aren't going with the flow, they're fighting against it, and that means anyone is around to take advantage of that.
It's that inherent, actual pressure of the world actively self-reinforcing narrative in-setting tropes that I think might be the second major thing you are mistaken on.
We have an excellent and story-relevant character to analyze. Olivier, under the moniker of his brother Roland, the Rogue Sorceror. What does he do? He literally lives a lie, presenting himself as his brother instead. His powers literally involve the theft of power from others. Does that make him Evil? Does that mean that he fights against the narrative? No, and it's for a few reasons.
The lie he presents matters to no one but himself. The powers he steals he steals from Villains, therefore taking from the corrupt and wicked to punish them. Beyond that, though, his Name gives him some benefit:
Rogue Sorceror. Inherently, he doesn't play by the same rules. His actions can be a little more gray than others. In fact, if he was too much of a "Goody Two Shoes", he wouldn't be the Rogue Sorceror, he'd lose his Name.
Let's look at another example, which would appear to support your point. The Lone Swordsman. He was specifically selected by a Choir to be a Hero, and it was their intent that he be a monster to fight monsters. He's truly a wretched individual, but fights on the side of Good. What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean he's physically incapable of doing that because he's Good? No. What it does mean is that he doesn't get the same protections as far more genuine heroes would, because the narrative isn't fully behind him. Catherine Foundling, in the earlier books of the setting, is the Squire under the Black Knight, the foremost officer of The Dread Empire of Praes. She likewise doesn't have the same protections a Villain would have, and the narrative isn't fully on her side, because she tries to straddle the lines.
In doing some research on The Lone Swordsman, I went back and read some chapters which highlight some of the things I'm talking about. Spoiler warnings apply.
"You are not Evil," she said. "That is what irritates me most about you, Catherine. You just ape the methods, reassuring yourself your intentions are still Good. You act like your Name is a weapon and ignore that it has a meaning."
She slid her fingers down the length of her blade, the runes shining at the touch.
"Your master is the same. Lord Black, fear of the continent," she mocked. "He is a rat hiding at the center of maze of traps he spent decades building. Dangerous, perhaps, but behind all the tricks he is weak."
She chuckled.
"No matter how clever the traps, they will not save him from a boot. You shy away from what you are, Foundling, and Creation abhors such spineless dithering. I know what I am. I embrace it, because that is what a villain is. That is why I have power…"
Her sword rose.
"Monologues," I said, "Not even once."
The Lone Swordsman hit her with a burst of light before I even finished talking.
A couple things here. One, as Akua states, you are not just you in this setting if you have a Name. You might be Chancellor, but if you're not scheming to take the Empire of Praes, you're not
actually the Chancellor. You have a weapon that you're not using correctly, and it can be taken from you.
Two, this highlights the literal narrative power of the setting. Villains monologuing is a trope. Heroes taking advantage of that is also a trope. It doesn't matter where The Lone Swordsman was before, or what he was doing; all that matters is that there would be an opportunity to punish a Villain during a monologue, and so wherever he was and whatever he was doing led him here to this moment, which Catherine uses to her advantage.
"What did you do?" Akua said suddenly, looking at me.
"I have three things," I said. "A kingdom, an enemy and a claim."
William snorted.
"A claim?" he said. "You-"
"I am the heiress to the King of Callow," I interrupted calmly.
"There is no King of Callow," the Lone Swordsman said.
"Yet a man rules it, and I am his chosen successor," I said.
Akua flinched, then looked at the sword. Too late now: she'd already given me what I needed. Of her own free will, too. That had to sting. William took the opening to dart for the blade, wrapping his fingers around the hilt and tugging it out. It did not move. His eyes turned to me, scared for the first time since I'd met him.
"It isn't yours anymore," I said.
"It was granted to me by the Hashmallim," he said.
"It's a sword in a stone. You did that yourself, with no one forcing you," I smiled. "It's a symbol, now, in a story about Callow."
This showcases the literal power of narrative in the setting. Catherine simply proposes the idea of this situation being a certain narrative, and it's so strong that she effectively steals a Hero's sword that was granted to him by literal Angels, because this narrative is far more powerful than that one. Last quote to underscore that:
"You can't cheat me," I laughed. "You're not the Gods. You're part of the story too. You have to follow the rules."
I opened my eyes, looking up into the perfect blankness.
"And if you won't give me my due," I said. "I'll Take it."
They shrieked but the power flowed into me. I felt my body spasm. My heart beat. My blood flow. The plain blurred, collapsed into me as I laughed.
Here, Catherine uses an Aspect to thwart the Choir of Contrition. So can people normally just go out and do that? No, obviously not. Angels are threats on the scale of Demons, and just because they are Good doesn't mean they aren't existential threats to mortals. But she could do it, in this moment, because it had the full weight of the capital 'N' Narrative behind it. Even the Angels, if they go that far from the path, can be defeated.
If all of that was a Too Long, Didn't Read, then read this:
Names have functional mechanics to them. The force of narrative trumps all. The Wandering Bard warned Taylor about this, because she's not Starscream. She's not Zorro, she's not Batman. She's not Robin Hood, or Thief, or the Rogue Sorceror, or the Heroic Assassin. Her Name doesn't coincide with doing distasteful things for the ultimate good, it doesn't offer protection when she does those things. She has a transitory name, full of potential, and the only narrative backing she has, besides trying to be a Hero, is to become something else later. Anyone else doing anything that is more in-line with their own narrative will be able to defeat her if she rids herself of what protections and weight she has. That was the Bard's warning, because she intimately knows how the world functions, and she knows even Angels and Devils, for all their power, can be defeated by puny mortals if they have the right narrative power in their sails.
