Eridanis
Bard 7/Mod (ret) 10/Mgr 3
Re: Re: Re: Re: Real world myths and legends: Who's Epic Level?
This post, I think, brings us nicely back to the original intent of this thread, and the question of 'what is epic'. I think some of our greatest heroes (fictional, non-fictional, and mythic alike) might have lower 'ability scores' in a D&D sense, but no one would deny that they could be considered epic - perhaps even in the D&D sense.
It seems to me that we invest some of ourselves in the characters whose stories we read, and that involvement causes us to attribute greater abilities to our favorites. Certainly, Gandalf would be an epic character, even though in the actual LotR books, he does not display his power in a flashy manner; we know in our hearts that he has more power than he lets on (and that is backed up by the backstory in the Silmarillion). Similarly, Odysseus is most certainly an epic character, even though we see him use his brains more than his brawn, especially in the Odyssey. Hector and Achilles are equally epic, even though they might be assigned stats of less than 20th level; their conflict is not just on the plains of Troy, but also in themselves (Achilles' rage vs. Hector's poise and honor - which would you rather have at your back?).
Arthur might be below 20th on someone's character sheet (even if he had Excaliber, and he did defeat Lancelot in battle), but his integrity and effect on his world push him over the top and would make him epic. As for real-world figures, what about Teddy Roosevelt? Sojourner Truth? George Washington? If we were to sit down and make a D&D-style character out of them, one might not give them the higest possible stats, but the power of their integrity, courage, and effect on their world would put them over the top.
All this to say that "epic" would be as much in what is not said as what is explicitly detailed. Our emotional investment colors our judgement when we create such rankings.
bramadan said:
This post, I think, brings us nicely back to the original intent of this thread, and the question of 'what is epic'. I think some of our greatest heroes (fictional, non-fictional, and mythic alike) might have lower 'ability scores' in a D&D sense, but no one would deny that they could be considered epic - perhaps even in the D&D sense.
It seems to me that we invest some of ourselves in the characters whose stories we read, and that involvement causes us to attribute greater abilities to our favorites. Certainly, Gandalf would be an epic character, even though in the actual LotR books, he does not display his power in a flashy manner; we know in our hearts that he has more power than he lets on (and that is backed up by the backstory in the Silmarillion). Similarly, Odysseus is most certainly an epic character, even though we see him use his brains more than his brawn, especially in the Odyssey. Hector and Achilles are equally epic, even though they might be assigned stats of less than 20th level; their conflict is not just on the plains of Troy, but also in themselves (Achilles' rage vs. Hector's poise and honor - which would you rather have at your back?).
Arthur might be below 20th on someone's character sheet (even if he had Excaliber, and he did defeat Lancelot in battle), but his integrity and effect on his world push him over the top and would make him epic. As for real-world figures, what about Teddy Roosevelt? Sojourner Truth? George Washington? If we were to sit down and make a D&D-style character out of them, one might not give them the higest possible stats, but the power of their integrity, courage, and effect on their world would put them over the top.
All this to say that "epic" would be as much in what is not said as what is explicitly detailed. Our emotional investment colors our judgement when we create such rankings.
Last edited:
