The Over Estimation Of Heroes From LiteratureAlmost without fail, when discussions turn toward our favorite heroes from myth and fantasy, we find what I believe to simply be an over estimation of the abilities and powers of those epic figures of yore. Why, for example, is the Wizard Gandalf always assumed to be such a high level magic user/fighter or druid/fighter, or Sir Lancelot an unbelievably high level paladin? True, a closer read sometimes reveals some justification for this (like Gandalf really being a minor angel of sorts, only constrained by certain oaths not to use his true power rather than actually being relatively weak), but even then we typically find the high estimations were based on what the characters were seen to be doing amongst the masses (rather than some hidden powers). Gandalf, for example, never really did anything a relatively low-level druid/fighter couldn't do. Arthur and his knights were just better than the masses by a mere level or two, and Merlin certainly didn't do things an AD&D arch mage couldn't easily do. So why, then, are they commonly thought to be of such high levels? The reason is simple; they were "relatively" powerful - in fact, far more powerful than those around them. And to keep the same level of awe and admiration, they would have to be of exceedingly high level in comparison to our own PCs. Otherwise, our fighters, clerics, mages, and thieves would all out shine our favorite heroes from literature, and that would be a let down. Let's face it, these characters have to be weaker. After all, the Lord Of The Rings isn't all that interesting when Gandalf teleports Frodo to the cracks of Doom, has him toss in the one ring, and comes home. But that's exactly what would have happened if he could do such things. When you consider it, our AD&D heroes actually far surpass these literary characters in most regards. Even Jesus Christ (whom many consider God) never did anything a typical 9th level cleric couldn't do, raising someone from the dead being about the most powerful thing he allegedly did. Gandalf only did what a low-level druid/fighter could do; Sir Lancelot and King Arthur only did things which fighters and paladins of less than 7th level could easily manage. So it's all about "relative" power. Even a 1st level fighter amongst a pack of farmers would be awesome. But where do we draw the line? It has been almost a sort of standard in AD&D that we draw the relative (not absolute) line at about 10 levels higher than the average level of the community as a whole. At this level, someone could be considered "Godlike!" Thus, Jesus, perhaps a 9th or 10th level cleric, would be considered godlike amongst what is, after all, a community where 99.9+% of the people are 0th level. And this would actually make our literary characters around 10th level as well, which is fitting. However, when you introduce AD&D characters as PCs, and the standard or average seems to start around name level, then the literary characters would have to be 10 levels higher than that to remain as impressive as they are in the books. The next thing you know it, Merlin, Gandalf, Lancelot, Arthur and the like are all around 20th level. And oddly enough, this is where you can find them even in certain AD&D books. Even though real 20th level AD&D characters could do far more than the literary characters ever did or ever could. So why is this important? When you consider the statistical improbabilities of having an adventurer, let alone one with high statistics, it puts them in perspective when compared to the masses. No matter how high your average level is for adventurers, the average level of the masses is still going to hang somewhere around 0th level. This would mean a typical PC of name level might be considered "Godlike" by the masses. That is, they would be, if it weren't for two things. One, the world is filthy with such people. Even if we can only number them in the dozens or hundreds, that is still a whole lot more than a single, unique personality. And two, they still have a very real connection to even higher level individuals; namely, the gods, and this kind of makes the PCs look weak in comparison. This doesn't mean the peasants wouldn't be suitably impressed with your 10th level fighter or your 10th level mage since they certainly would be impressed. It only means these peasants have a slightly better understanding of the power structure around them and are more used to it than an Earthling would be, never having seen such a person, let alone lots of them. And these peasants have lived all their lives in a world where they have proof, and not just faith, in the existence of gods, so though very impressed with your PC, it is unlikely they will be taken as gods. But that 10 level relative mark is still important. For one thing, anyone 10 levels higher than your character could seem and would seem to do god like things. So your 4th level fighter, while not thinking his own 10th level master is a god, should have considerably more respect for a 14th level fighter (though your master may simply call him friend). This may give one the proper idea of how they should behave toward such an individual when they actually do meet them in person. The second important thing about the 10 level mark is this is where divine ascension may occur. That is, someone who is well known (possibly feared, hated, respected, or loved) and still 10 levels higher than the average level of what is seen (and not just 10 levels higher than the masses), might qualify for and obtain divine ascension. So depending on the level of game you are in, and your own relative level within it, one can get a good idea of how impressive or unimpressive their characters really are. And all of this may be taken as just my idea of how to properly play characters of differing levels mixing with other characters of differing levels. Now I have seen my fair share of high level campaigns, and Orlantia is considerably less powerful than some in which I have played. On the other hand, I have been in even more examples of low-level campaigns, and Orlantia far exceeds them in relative power and magical sophistication. All told, it is always just a matter of personal taste where you like to play and how you like to run your own game. Personally, I consider myself extremely lucky to be able to enjoy games anywhere on this power spectrum, but even I have my preferences. I have found my personal tastes run toward mid to high level games; quantifying it would make them about 7th to 14th level. As such, reflecting my preferences, my own creation has derived a certain flavor to it. Not exactly a land of poverty (though it has many pockets of low powered communities and magic so I can always run games there when the desire arises), nor the land of perpetual wealth and power (even though I could run it here as well, but am reluctant to do so for fear the PCs from these areas might wreak havoc on the rest of my world), Orlantia is situated at what I call name level campaigns. These tend to favor or gravitate around the characters of name level (about 9th to 12th level), but have hundreds of lower level characters and dozens of higher level ones. (Even though this is where I like to play, if I have the time, I usually will take a new group from 1st to 9th level in about a year of real time). Not counting the gods (for such NPCs would throw one's average off) or certain singular characters (like Tranu or others, all of whom are collectively known as group A and having in common the fact that most people consider it unwise to even mention their names out loud for fear of bad things happening), some of the most impressive people on the planet are in their low 20s as far as level is concerned. Frequently, these NPCs (group B) are only spoken about and never really directly interacted with. Perhaps, on rare occasions, when that sort of power is necessary or required, the PCs may interact with a go between or a servant of such a high level character, but never with them directly. The Gardener of the Alderami is an example of a group B entity. Then we have the next group of lofty characters. These (group C characters) include the arch mages (like Quality, Maurice, Morbius, and others), the high Priests (like Winston or Serenity), the Lords of the fighters (like Ordamen, Banacor, or Teflack), the masters of the thieve's or assassin's guilds (like, well, their names are secret), the Grand Masters of Flowers (like Zetan, Brady, or others), and other characters. These are all possible NPCs the PCs might personally interact with on some rare occasions. Next on the food chain we find very rare groups of adventurers (group D) who have been successfully adventuring for years, churches, kingdoms, or other governmental organizations who have real power (so much in fact, through organization and numbers, they could easily best individuals in groups C and B). Starlight and the Enchanted group would fall into the lower end of this category of NPCs, and the Church of Athena or the Alodarian Empire would be at the higher end (partly because people like Starlight and company often do the bidding of the church or the empire). After that, we find the semi-retired (group E) individuals who no longer regularly adventure (since their group fell apart or died for one reason or another) but are slowly going up in level (and might one day actually reach group C, or even B). These are the loners, the most dangerous and/or helpful of NPCs to befriend or avoid. After the loners, we have the mentors (group F). This is where you'd find most of the higher level NPCs I typically use as mentors, trainers, or even major villains. Around 10th to 14th level, this is the first group of relatively important people the PCs may actually get to know by name. As such, they frequently set the standard and at least occasionally call the shots or send the PCs on missions and/or quests. After the mentors we find the Veterans (group G). They may have been previous students of the mentors or not, but they are between the mentors and the PCs in level. Then we have the PCs and associates (group H). They may be rivals or fellow adventurers. After that, we have the followers (group I). These are adventurers of lesser stature, probably between the PCs and the novices in level. Naturally, then, the next group would be the novices (group J). These are all 1st level adventurers, but usually it refers to people still looking for a place or group with which to adventure. Proceeding downward, we then hit the students (group K). Anywhere from foundlings to young adults, they are in the midst of their training to achieve 1st level. Finally, we end with the masses (group L). These are any humanoid (or possible races who could be PCs) who are 0th level and likely to remain there. Group Description.
After completing this table I asked myself what the pertinent relevance of it was. Then I remembered, it needn't have any. It's just part of my creation as deserves a place in the history, whether someone takes the time to read it or not. If you did read it, thanks - I hope you can get some use out of it. OVERLY HIGH STATISTIC SCORESAll of the passages immediately above dealt mostly with character class levels, but very similar truths hold when considering individual statistic scores as well. Why, for example, does Gandalf have such an incredible intelligence, King Arthur a 19 wisdom, Lancelot a 19 strength, etc.? True, this may be more realistic than their levels, but it may also just be that most people have poor understanding of just how impressive a statistic above 12 really is. After all, that kid who effortlessly pulled A's in every subject in high school may easily have done so with a "mere" 13 to 14 intelligence. This would make a 15 intelligence extraordinary, a 16 astounding, a 17 incredible, and an 18 almost unheard of, perhaps even nearly singular at any given time for any given community. (A 12 to 14 intelligence, by the way, is where they actually start calling them a genius). Our literary heroes could easily have been the stuff of legend with the relevant statistic scores anywhere between 12 and 16, but we naturally pump them up to keep them relatively high when comparing them to our own characters (who miraculously seem to have 18s in their prime requisites, if not several more 18s as well). And if that isn't bad enough, we sometimes feel the need to have extraordinary characters in comparison to our own over estimations and make our characters even higher still. (Like you may wish your PC whom eventually becomes king to be even more impressive than the AD&D King Arthur, who is already made artificially high). Eventually, we all end up on the higher side of ludicrously improbable, and we subsequently strive for those statistics ourselves just so we can be heroes too, a sort of self fulfilling prophecy. All in all, it's rather unfortunate, but it will continue to happen. To put a limit on that sort of run away stat climbing I have made it impossible for the human frame to maintain, in any permanent way, a statistic score above 20. I did this since the AD&D game clearly ran the tables out to 25 for the more god like beings, and so I felt a score of 20 or less to still be reasonably human. And although I do not think it a bad thing to have characters with statistics that high (in moderation), I can only smile to myself when I realize we sometimes only strive for such characters "after" looking at the unrealistic write ups of our literary, heroic friends (those write ups coming after those who wrote the AD&D versions had probably had their own PC super characters and wanted the literary heroes to still be higher in comparison). If they wouldn't have over estimated the literary heroes and made them so high in the first place, perhaps we'd see less ridiculously high characters with ridiculously high statistics. Oh well, live and learn, I always say. It's probably just another of the many problems of thinking a non-linear system (like a bell curve) and a linear system (like a D20) are very similar when, in fact, they are very dissimilar. So the lesson of all that is simply this: If your character's statistics are around 12 to 16, and your character's level is around 7 to 12 or less, then you may have a reasonable character as far as probabilities are concerned. Besides, playing characters which are more reasonable, assuming everyone else is doing the same, is just as fun (and perhaps even more so). There is, after all, a lot more room for realistic growth and character development. Furthermore, a more realistic character is something you have a chance of playing properly since it is within the realm of our understanding and experience. Characters with much higher statistics and much higher levels are so far beyond our experiences that we really have no clue of what they may be capable. After all, they are getting to be god-like, and who among us knows what that is really like? © March of 1999 |