Is D&D combat meant to be heroic?

[HeavenShallBurn]

Jack Sparrow is cool
Nameless(from Hero) is cool
Han Solo is cool
Aragorn, Legolas are cool

Snarf is not cool
C3-PO is not cool
Frodo & Sam ae not cool

but all of the above are heroic in their own way.

I think the question here is what definition of heroism are we using?
*The modern sense of moral heroism involving sacrifice and suffering for a morally proper cause
*Or the original classical sense of the word?

Would you consider Achilles heroic knowing his actions from the Illiad?
Would you consider Alexander the Great heroic based on historic accounts?
How about Sir Francis Drake? The First Emporer of Chin? Cortez and Pizarro?

Before you can really decide whether D&D combat is supposed to be heroic it's necessary to define what you consider heroism.

 

[Campbell]

And I like it that way, though it could use some added fluidity in the combat mechanism if that can be managed without slowing down combat any further.

On this matter we are in total agreement. Although I would hesitate to call prevailing against one's enemies on the basis of tactics and ability as heroism. Characters who accomplish such feats on a regular basis are what I'd call great men, rather than heroes. To me, heroism is about standing for something greater than yourself, holding steadfast to virtue, and being willing to make personal sacrifices in the name of your noble causes. A hero can also be a great man, but isn't necessarily so. The same could also be said in reverse.

For example, Corwin from Roger Zalazny's Amber Chronicles and Elric are quintessential examples of great men, but aren't exactly heroic. Although both eventually take part in some very noble endeavors, they are principally motivated by their own standing,show disregard for the wellbeing of others, and are very hesitant to make personal sacrifices. Achilles,Jack Sparrow, and Alexander the Great also fit this mold.

On the flip side, Frodo Baggins is heroic but not a great man ... er... Halfling. On his journey to Mount Doom Frodo is protected by others every step of the way, often needs to be saved from his own foolish actions, and shows very little in the way of adventuring talent. Yet he presses on, doesn't succumb to moral darkness, shows mercy to his enemies, and was always willing to make the personal sacrifices that were required of him. I'm hard pressed to think of many examples of this kind of character outside of Middle Earth. Perhaps it's a sign that I'm not really a fan of this character type.

Examples of great men who are also heroes would include Sir Gawain,William Turner,Aragorn, and a good number of other fantasy protagonists. I would argue that not a lot of mythic characters, or historical figures fit this category.

 

[Imaro]

I think the question here is what definition of heroism are we using?
*The modern sense of moral heroism involving sacrifice and suffering for a morally proper cause
*Or the original classical sense of the word?

Would you consider Achilles heroic knowing his actions from the Illiad?
Would you consider Alexander the Great heroic based on historic accounts?
How about Sir Francis Drake? The First Emporer of Chin? Cortez and Pizarro?

Before you can really decide whether D&D combat is supposed to be heroic it's necessary to define what you consider heroism.

I would say in a D&D game, unless I'm forcing PC's into particular alignments, I gotta go with the classical heroic. It's not my job to judge their morality, I'm there to provide a background/campaign for them to be the protagonists(and this word has nothing to do with morality) in.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

See that's why the question is so important.

Although I would hesitate to call prevailing against one's enemies on the basis of tactics and ability as heroism. Characters who accomplish such feats on a regular basis are what I'd call great men, rather than heroes. To me, heroism is about standing for something greater than yourself, holding steadfast to virtue, and being willing to make personal sacrifices in the name of your noble causes. A hero can also be a great man, but isn't necessarily so. The same could also be said in reverse.

Based on your description you're clearly using the more common modern definition of the word heroism. Nothing wrong with that, it's a game and everybody's is different, but the key is recognizing that there have been and are multiple possible definitions of the word. A classical hero acts NOTHING like a modern hero. So the answer will vary based on what definition is being used. I wrote a paper back when I was a freshman in college that dealt with precisely this, the change in the definition of the word heroism between Homer and Stan Lee. It was a damned good paper, wish I could find it, but I think it's gone for good.

For example, Corwin from Roger Zalazny's Amber Chronicles and Elric are quintessential examples of great men, but aren't exactly heroic. Although both eventually take part in some very noble endeavors, they are principally motivated by their own standing,show disregard for the wellbeing of others, and are very hesitant to make personal sacrifices. Achilles,Jack Sparrow, and Alexander the Great also fit this mold.

This is the crucial part, because Corwin and Elric are both extremely good examples of the classical hero. The best example of the classical hero is Achilles who literally is the archetypal classical hero. The Illiad and particularly his role and actions within specifically illustrate the ideal of the perfect classical hero. In all of real history Alexander the Great came so close to living the life of the archetypal classical hero that it's truly amazing. And this is precisely what D&D emulates, the hero elevated above other mundane nobodies by his arete, who does that which is impossible and triumphs through his own greatness bringing honor and glory upon himself while destroying his enemies.

 

[DragonLancer]

Ok, you guys have lost me now.

Whats the difference between modern heroism and classical heroism?

 

[Reynard]

Ok, you guys have lost me now.

Whats the difference between modern heroism and classical heroism?

Put simply --

Modern heroism = "good guy"

Classical Heroism = "bad ass"

 

[ha-gieden]

When I read the original question, I thought "heroic" was being used to describe combat the way we see it in martial arts movies: a single person (the hero) takes on every opponent in sight and walks off looking for more. Almost more important than the sheer number of opponents, however, is the style and, well, the "wow" factor with which the hero's task is accomplished.

I didn't think it actually had much to do with the moral fiber or innate characteristics of the characters being played. I thought it was the combat *itself* that was being asked about.

To that effect, I probably should have used the word "cinematic" instead of "heroic". But I think "cinematic" sometimes implies "unrealistic", and the combat sequences in our games don't tend towards that. Of our group Saturday, five out of the eight participants had taken at least one martial art and had had some form of weapons training. Of the remaining three, two were prison guards and one was a police officer...SWAT. Our combat sessions almost never stay with "I attack on my init."; we almost always say things like, "I'm gonna try to kick in his knee." If a high enough success is rolled, then the DM will probably assign the guy who just got his knee kicked in a movement penalty. So our combat is rather cinematic/heroic/interesting.

Sometimes game mechanics do seem as if they would get in the way of this...but that's what house rules are for. So was D&D combat meant to be heroic in a cinematic way? I dunno...but like I said, anytime one guy can walk through a whole town kicking behind and taking names, it's gotta be heroics/cinematics or pure game mechanics, one of the two.