Fantasy warriors: How powerful can you tolerate them being?

[Agrippa]

In much of the pulp stories that inspired D&D it's warrior heroes were highly accomplished men, but still limted to just above-average human skill. Yet in certain works of modern fiction and ancient mythology, I'm looking you Irish Myths there are quitre a few warriors with superhuman skill and ability. Perhaps this is an innate power that took time developing with in the hero or is the result of intense training and bestowment. From Captain America to Cu Chulainn these combatants are great physical powerhouses, practically gods amung men. So the question is this, what are your limits for fantasy heroes? Are they at most more like heroes from the old pulps, such as the great Conan or those of Irish Myth, namely Cu Chulainn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn)? There are no wrong answers for this one, it's all just a matter of opinion.

[Xondoure]

A fantasy warrior can tear apart the multiverse for all I care, so long as the story, conflict, and characters are interesting. Power can be used as a crutch for competent storytelling but that doesn't mean it can't also be used well.

[Traab]

Its a lot like defining pornography. I cant really define it, but I know it when I see it. Its not like there is a hard and fast rule like, "The hero may only be 3.74x as strong as a normal human, and 2.43x faster." Alot of it is determined by the world the hero is involved with, the strength and type of the bad guys, and other hard to quantify factors.

I once read a story where we learned that the main character was 13x stronger in magic than the previous most powerful person in that world. Then she went through a ceremony and became unimaginably more powerful than that. Literally off the scale to the point where there was no way to really compare, like trying to determine how much more powerful a dragon is than an ant. Or like comparing some random fat kids martial arts ability to bruce lee after you just stabbed his wife in the face. But it was ok in the context of the story, because she never really USED that level of power. Not until the grand finale at least. In fact, that was a part of the story, iirc, she didnt WANT to use that kind of power because it was too great. So it worked out ok.

So really, you cant just say that "x" is the cutoff point and more is too powerful, it just doesnt work that way.

[Giggling Ghast]

Are you asking about the power level of warriors, or are you really asking about the power level of warriors in relation to wizards? Because that's what these threads tend to boil down to: whether or not the guy with the sword can match up the guy who can make reality bend to his will by wiggling his fingers and spouting mangled Latin.

I have no problem with warriors performing acts well beyond the ability of the average human. My tolerance ends somewhere around Dragon Ball Z: once the ability to destroy a planet becomes trivial, that's about as far as I'm willing to take it.

[Remmirath]

I don't really care so long as the story interests me and the characters interest me, and so long as it doesn't seem silly within the story.

It does usually seem less interesting to me if the hero is never really challenged, but that's dependent not only on the hero's power but on the power of the enemies that he's facing, so that's fairly hard to nail down (especially since non-combat challenges would also count) - and I'm sure there are some exceptions to that, somewhere.

[warty goblin]

My general feeling is that making characters have completely over the top powers seldom adds anything to the story. Anymore I really don't read fantasy for the fantastic parts, so having people who can punch through tank armor or what have you doesn't attract me. If anything it usually does the reverse, since the more crazy over the top the powers are, in my experience the more likely the story is to fixate endlessly on them. This bores me, since stories like this tend to read like the author confused the chapter on leveling up in their D&D manuals for character development.

It's not a hard and fast rule by any means, but it is a strong enough correlation it certainly plays a role in determining what books I read.

[Ravens_cry]

Batman, maybe a bit below, unless supernatural elements are explicitly invoked. Jedi are cool, but Jedi have a supernatural element, the Force. Spiderman is cool, but he has a supernatural element, superpowers.

[Axolotl]

As long as there's some threat or conflict there's no upper limit on what I'll tolerate and enjoy. I mean Elric could slice his way through gods without a great deal of effort but the price he had to pay to be able to do it means there was still tension in the story.

[GolemsVoice]

The story and threats have to fit the power of the hero. There is no real upper limit, and no real lower limit, aside from wishing that the characters are actually competent at what they're doing. Unless, again, them being not so competent is an important element of the story.

[TheEmerged]

Are you asking about the power level of warriors, or are you really asking about the power level of warriors in relation to wizards? Because that's what these threads tend to boil down to: whether or not the guy with the sword can match up the guy who can make reality bend to his will by wiggling his fingers and spouting mangled Latin.

I have no problem with warriors performing acts well beyond the ability of the average human. My tolerance ends somewhere around Dragon Ball Z: once the ability to destroy a planet becomes trivial, that's about as far as I'm willing to take it.

Can I play devil's lawyer for a moment?

In a lot of fantasy, the feats warriors do bend the laws of reality just as much -- just in a different direction. The wizard bends reality and & ball of fire explodes. The warrior bends reality and somehow forces his opponents to fight him one on one instead of dogpiling him :smallwink:

[Fiery Diamond]

A fantasy warrior can tear apart the multiverse for all I care, so long as the story, conflict, and characters are interesting. Power can be used as a crutch for competent storytelling but that doesn't mean it can't also be used well.

I feel this way - the specific level of power isn't the point. Characters are most important, then conflict, then story, in that order for me.


I cant really define it, but I know it when I see it. Its not like there is a hard and fast rule like, "The hero may only be 3.74x as strong as a normal human, and 2.43x faster." Alot of it is determined by the world the hero is involved with, the strength and type of the bad guys, and other hard to quantify factors.

So really, you cant just say that "x" is the cutoff point and more is too powerful, it just doesnt work that way.

I also agree with this. Power should be tailored to the set of assumptions that the setting and story are built on. This is why the "Mary Sue Litmus Test" doesn't work: it assumes a main character who can take on an army battalion is a Mary Sue when that's not a fair assumption.


I don't really care so long as the story interests me and the characters interest me, and so long as it doesn't seem silly within the story.

It does usually seem less interesting to me if the hero is never really challenged, but that's dependent not only on the hero's power but on the power of the enemies that he's facing, so that's fairly hard to nail down (especially since non-combat challenges would also count) - and I'm sure there are some exceptions to that, somewhere.

Also important points here. It shouldn't be ridiculous within the context of the story. A story where the greatest warriors could punch through a foot of solid steel but the main character can blow up a castle by blowing on it would be stupid.

And the fact that non-combat challenges also count is important too. So is the fact that having to limit one's power can be a challenge. I have a running narrative that revolves around several characters who are at the level of blowing chunks out of planets if they go all out but most of their conflicts occur within cities.


The story and threats have to fit the power of the hero. There is no real upper limit, and no real lower limit, aside from wishing that the characters are actually competent at what they're doing. Unless, again, them being not so competent is an important element of the story.

And this is a nice finishing touch.

[Weezer]

And the fact that non-combat challenges also count is important too. So is the fact that having to limit one's power can be a challenge. I have a running narrative that revolves around several characters who are at the level of blowing chunks out of planets if they go all out but most of their conflicts occur within cities.


A good example of this is Thomas Covenant from Donaldson's series "Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever". He has what is essentially unlimited power and yet isn't able to use it except in the most dire of circumstances because he has too much power, enough that he can accidentally cause the unmaking of the world. So despite his ultimate power he needs to rely on mundane means and allies to accomplish his quests.

Third Trilogy Spoilers
And one of his companions, Linden, ignores the danger of his power and uses it to bring Covenant back from the dead, thus waking the beast that brings the apocalypse. OOPS.

[Zaydos]

Is the warrior a Badass Normal?

If they're supposed to be a Badass Normal Conan is just about the sweetspot. He can take down ancient, horrible gods, because they aren't really gods but simply dangerous monsters (in D&D terms I'd peg him as fighting CR <8 threats) which have been mistaken for gods. Tarzan is a little over the top, and John Carter is too much even though I did in fact love that series (he also was somehow immortal, able to teleport by being killed, and on a world with vastly reduced gravity so he actually gets put in the supernatural category).

If they're supposed to have supernatural powers then the power level goes way up. Once it boils down to just show casing cool powers, though, it's too much. One Piece, Bleach, Naruto all are too power focused for my tastes (as is Superman except when he's facing something really his level). Dragonball Z gets an excemption based on nostalgia, not quality. On the other hand Corum (from Michael Moorcock's works) and Elric are in a rather sweet spot as far as supernatural heroes are concerned.

Correction: Elric wavers above and below the sweet spot due to his dependency on Stormbringer. Those horribly few times he relied upon his herbal potions he hit a major sweet spot of sheer badassness.

[Jerthanis]

Really, I think it depends on the setting. If the setting reflects how good you can be while remaining ultimately mundane, then they can be as powerful as you like.

Kung Fu settings, for instance, are largely self-consistent despite the fact that if your kung fu is big enough, you can jump over mountains and split castles asunder with a kick merely through sufficient training. The setting reflects this in that, for example: armies of warlords tend to give monasteries where these people train wide berth, or annihilate them through trickery because they are aware these people are unstoppable warriors. In addition, people in the world sort of understand that in order to take out a Kung Fu warrior, you need another Kung Fu warrior.

On the flipside, if nobody reacts to these people in a realistic way, it will feel out of place. If it's the modern day and people can easily learn to run faster than cars, and yet cars are still used as the primary means of getting around, then something is off. In the same way, if warriors can cut through stone walls with their swords, then stone walls had better not be the primary means of defense a castle would employ.

[TheSummoner]

How powerful should they be?

Powerful enough to win when it matters, but not so powerful that these victories are trivial, easily won, or foregone conclusions.

It should also try to stay consistant and avoid... well... getting to the point where it's just silly...

[Tengu_temp]

Like a lot of people said before, what matters most is the comparable level of the warrior to the challenges that lie before him. There is an upper level of power beyond which things become too ridiculous and too hard to relate to, but I can think only of one piece of fiction that reached it: Dragonball Z, where in the later arcs pretty much all characters can travel to whatever place they want instantly or almost instantly, detect each other with very good accuracy and effortlessly destroy planets. It's okay if an over-the-top series reaches this power level for the finale and then ends, but if it stays there, the narrative suffers.

[factotum]

but I can think only of one piece of fiction that reached it: Dragonball Z, where in the later arcs pretty much all characters can travel to whatever place they want instantly or almost instantly, detect each other with very good accuracy and effortlessly destroy planets.

Strange, I was thinking about DBZ when I read the subject of the thread. Don't get me wrong, I like DBZ a lot, but the constantly-increasing power level of the participants just got silly quite rapidly.

I think Druss (from the book Legend, by David Gemmell) is a pretty good example of what I think is reasonable. He's just an enormously strong human (he's capable of breaking a padlock with his bare hands when he's in his sixties), but he's as prone to getting laid low by injury as anyone else--in fact, he's killed by poison one of his opponents treacherously put on his blade.

[Mordar]

How powerful should they be?

Powerful enough to win when it matters, but not so powerful that these victories are trivial, easily won, or foregone conclusions.

QFT.

Relative power is very important to me...characters have to have enough "uber" to get them well clear of the mooks, but not so much as to require their enemies to succeed at Xanatos Gambit-style plots to put them in danger. Make us believe the hero can be beat, even if he won't be...and make sure it doesn't require "Good = Dumb" to happen...

The power scale that surrounds them is very important as well, even if it is not an issue of direct conflict. Taking your examples, it is important that Conan's power be of similar scope as Thulsa Doom's, even if they are very different power sources...Conan's melee and stealth vs. Doom's/Amon's magic and political power. The "rivalry" is enhanced by having different spheres of power, but also by knowing that there are other priests, warriors and thieves out there that are at least competitive...such as Thoth-amon, Red Sonja, Belit or Subatai (yes, I am crossing media).

As far as the Celtic heroes go...they can be as powerful as you want...so long as the firbolgs, the anti-heroes, the Morrigans of the story are on an equal footing (again, even if that power is in a different sphere than our spear-wielding machine of death). As long as there is a reasonable way for them to defeat one another, I'm happy. Just gotta be careful with those enchanted weapons that make people unbeatable...

Funnily enough, I think the problem is far greater with villians than heroes...all too often in order to show us how bad, evil and horrible the villian is meant to be, they are shown to be nearly all-powerful. How can our hero possibly top them? Why, with a nice piece of deux ex machina, of course! This is the greater trap in the genre, I think, be it modern fantasy or fantasy fantasy.

- M

[Eldan]

Strange, I was thinking about DBZ when I read the subject of the thread. Don't get me wrong, I like DBZ a lot, but the constantly-increasing power level of the participants just got silly quite rapidly.
.

That, however, I think are different problems. For one thing, the storytelling was really pretty bad for large parts, as was the pacing. And rapidly increasing powerlevel is also not quite the same as a power level that was always high and had the world built around it to fit.

[Shpadoinkle]

Depends on the setting. Like Zaydos, unless the game is explicitly high-powered, I find Conan to be a great reference point. Warriors should be able to kill eldtrich abominations... but they should need either godlike luck, incredibly powerful weapons, or a lot of people helping them.

In a standard D&D setting? I have zero problems with fighters eventually becoming strong enough to cleave the damn planet in half with a single blow, if they somehow survive long enough to reach that kind of level. As a more general rule of thumb? I think a fighter should be able to kill a monster with a CR equal to his level about half the time, assuming both of them are alone and properly armed, aware of each other, the fighter has appropriate WBL (in usable items- a lone fighter with all his WBL in wands is kind of screwed no matter what) and neither has a home field advantage.

[Fiery Diamond]

Depends on the setting. Like Zaydos, unless the game is explicitly high-powered, I find Conan to be a great reference point. Warriors should be able to kill eldtrich abominations... but they should need either godlike luck, incredibly powerful weapons, or a lot of people helping them.

In a standard D&D setting? I have zero problems with fighters eventually becoming strong enough to cleave the damn planet in half with a single blow, if they somehow survive long enough to reach that kind of level. As a more general rule of thumb? I think a fighter should be able to kill a monster with a CR equal to his level about half the time, assuming both of them are alone and properly armed, aware of each other, the fighter has appropriate WBL (in usable items- a lone fighter with all his WBL in wands is kind of screwed no matter what) and neither has a home field advantage.

I really don't know whether it's funny or sad that people come to threads in the media section and throw about terms and concepts related to gaming, RPGs, and D&D specifically as though that's the perfectly normal way of looking at all fiction as if no fantasy exists outside of gaming. I'm leaning toward funny. I've seen this happen several times with different posters. I think part of it comes from people who generally post in the gaming section not really paying attention to the fact that the thread is not in the gaming section. The other part of it, and this is the part I'm not sure is funny or sad, is that gaming is such an integral part of many people's lives on forums like this that they really DO tend to think of fiction in terms of gaming.

I'm not really one to talk, though. I'm a massive video gamer and have my own issues as a result.

[DomaDoma]

As long as opposing characters can reasonably be a match for the powerful character, it doesn't wreck the conflict. That's the main thing.

[SuperFerret]

I really don't know whether it's funny or sad that people come to threads in the media section and throw about terms and concepts related to gaming, RPGs, and D&D specifically as though that's the perfectly normal way of looking at all fiction as if no fantasy exists outside of gaming. I'm leaning toward funny. I've seen this happen several times with different posters. I think part of it comes from people who generally post in the gaming section not really paying attention to the fact that the thread is not in the gaming section. The other part of it, and this is the part I'm not sure is funny or sad, is that gaming is such an integral part of many people's lives on forums like this that they really DO tend to think of fiction in terms of gaming.

I'm not really one to talk, though. I'm a massive video gamer and have my own issues as a result.

It's still a media section on a forum that's dedicated to gaming (by way of a webcomic about gaming), so naturally gaming bleeds into everything. If you want strict media, there are forums for that as well.

Reminds me of a time I mentioned Mutant Registration in a Politics section on a Superhero forum.

[Kato]

Hm... I have seen Lagann-hen and enjoyed it. Is that enough for an answer :smalltongue:

Okay, in all seriousness, it depends. In a well written story they might as well be able to destroy the multiverse but i guess that requires quite a level of skill.
In general I like planet-busting as a basic scale because if a villain ha planet busting powers it's usually hard for a hero to stop him and he could just take a planet hostage. Sure, this works on smaller scales but this is where I think it gets ridiculous most of the time...

[BlackDragonKing]

How powerful should they be?

Powerful enough to win when it matters, but not so powerful that these victories are trivial, easily won, or foregone conclusions.

This. This. SO MUCH THIS.

It's a major problem I have with YA fiction; a lot of the authors don't seem to understand the difference between making the protagonist a good fighter and trivializing fighting in the book because the protagonist is just that much better than anyone else.

A book called Graceling, for example, had a main character with a special magical talent for killing, but was a 15-year-old girl with the physical abilities of a 15-year-old-girl trained to fight. This doesn't stop her from marching unarmed into a room with 200 trained soldiers surrounding her knowing perfectly well she'll kill every last one of them if they start a fight. When you make characters that powerful, it trivializes the idea of that character needing to fight, and forces you to create a bad guy who can avoid getting into fights; rather than some big battle at the end, the final confrontation is over the second the protagonist remembers to strike a single blow.

Typically people will roll their eyes at people without some pretty incredible factors aiding them taking on men in the hundreds and winning easily. Being smaller-scale can work just fine, particularly when your characters don't have uberpowers of the universe; in The Two Towers, Gimli and Legolas killed like 84 orcs between them at the battle of Helm's Deep despite defending a fortress against 10,000 of the buggers. A warrior taking on 43 men and coming out on top is a badass. A warrior taking on 200 men and coming out on top is likely getting some incredulous stares from the audience.

[Tengu_temp]

Eh, that depends entirely on the setting. In some of them, the big battles are between important, powerful named characters, and killing 200 mooks in a battle is nothing too unusual.


The other part of it, and this is the part I'm not sure is funny or sad, is that gaming is such an integral part of many people's lives on forums like this that they really DO tend to think of fiction in terms of gaming.

Funny, it's the opposite for me - I tend to think of my games in terms of fiction.

[factotum]

Gimli and Legolas killed like 84 orcs between them at the battle of Helm's Deep despite defending a fortress against 10,000 of the buggers. A warrior taking on 43 men and coming out on top is a badass.

83, actually--Gimli took forty-two at the last count, and Legolas admitted he'd passed his own total by one. :smallwink:

Still, that example does indicate the differences very well--Gimli even got lightly wounded while taking down his 42 enemies, which some of the more ridiculous heroes in fiction would consider made him a nancy boy who couldn't handle himself in a fight!

[mangosta71]

I like my heroes to have weaknesses that can be exploited so that there's a real, significant chance of failure. I prefer heroes that win through outsmarting their opponents rather than flat-out overpowering them. Tangent spoilered.That's why I lost interest in DBZ after Frieza - at that point it was all about who had the highest power level. My favorite character was Krillin, who was able to win until that point with his discs of awesome. But then suddenly chopping your opponent into tiny little foe-shaped bits wasn't enough to take him out of the fight any more. And getting smacked with a blow that would have shattered a planet wasn't enough to mess up the combatants' hair.

In essence, I like my heroes to be human (not necessarily in strength/ability). The LotR party is great in this respect - Gimli isn't single-handedly taking on 42 guys at a time, he's part of an army, taking opponents as they come, and he happens to kill 42 by the time the battle ends. Boromir is a one-man whirlwind of death, but eventually he's overcome by superior forces. Book Legolas, as opposed to movie Legolas, is successful because he stays the hell out of the thick of the fighting so he can snipe effectively. Everyone is focusing on what they do well and working as part of the group. (Groups are always more interesting than solitary heroes due to social dynamics). As the story unfolds, there's the sense that a random arrow can strike down one of the main characters at any time. That tension is something that's missing from a lot of the stories that are told today.

[An Enemy Spy]

I hate it when the hero can take down tons of bad guys effortlessly, particularly when his opponents are supposed to be battlehardened warriors. Sometimes it seems like the hero is the only person in the world capable of kicking butt, and everyone else is just his target.
When you are surrounded by fifty enemies, it's time to either surrender or resort to trickery, not to smile and charge, knowing that a mere fifty men could never hope to defeat you, no matter how well armed and trained they are.
There's another thing. People who have never picked up a weapon in their life being able to defeat enemies who have been fighting since they could walk. Redwall is very guilty of this. How am I supposed to believe a group of kids can routinely beat over a dozen bloodthirsty bandits and barbarians over and over with no casualties at all? It gets ridiculous at times.

[Tazar]

I'm good with the full range of power, from utter normal and average fighter to Rand "I blow up armies for breakfast" Al'Thor.

[McStabbington]

There isn't any set limit, but whatever level it is, it must still allow for drama and conflict. A mage that can bend and twist the very fabric of reality to his will is okay. A mage with cold hard limits but is invulnerable to anything the heroes could use against him is not.

One surprisingly good example of this principle is The Iliad. In more modern tellings, Hector is basically the second-best warrior in the world behind Achilles. In the actual Iliad, Hector's superpower if he had one would basically be to somehow avoid death when one of the Greek heroes beat the snot out of him. Achilles thumped him. Ajax thumped him. Odysseus thumped him. As a matter of fact, at one point members of the Greek pantheon themselves (Ares and Aphrodite) take the field and start to slaughter the nameless Greek mooks ala Sauron at the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring. Achilles was at this point refusing to fight for Agammemnon, so he wasn't in the field. So Diomedes, a hero we don't even remember in the modern telling, takes the field and, with a little help from Athena, punks both Ares and Aphrodite out. That's right: the second best hero whom we usually just blend in with Ajax the Greater bested two gods in armed combat on the same day. Oh, and he thumped Hector too.

For all that, though, the Iliad is actually a compelling story, because there is still a significant amount of conflict that hamstrings the Greeks. Man for man, the Greek heroes could easily defeat the Trojans. But they can't get over the walls of Troy, and they can't get over the fact that Agammemnon is a terrible, terrible leader: a man of insane ambition without the slightest ability to actually keep his men placated and happy. The reason Achilles was sulking in his tent when Diomedes took the field was because Agammemnon took for himself the woman Achilles had taken as a spoil of war. In front of him. And in front of his men. For no good reason other than to spite Achilles. Few literary characters in history could defeat Achilles or Diomedes, but even they can't beat incompetent leadership. It takes Odysseus continually outthinking everyone else to keep the Greek coalition together and eventually defeat the wall.

[Fiery Diamond]

I like my heroes to have weaknesses that can be exploited so that there's a real, significant chance of failure. I prefer heroes that win through outsmarting their opponents rather than flat-out overpowering them. Tangent spoilered.That's why I lost interest in DBZ after Frieza - at that point it was all about who had the highest power level. My favorite character was Krillin, who was able to win until that point with his discs of awesome. But then suddenly chopping your opponent into tiny little foe-shaped bits wasn't enough to take him out of the fight any more. And getting smacked with a blow that would have shattered a planet wasn't enough to mess up the combatants' hair.

In essence, I like my heroes to be human (not necessarily in strength/ability). The LotR party is great in this respect - Gimli isn't single-handedly taking on 42 guys at a time, he's part of an army, taking opponents as they come, and he happens to kill 42 by the time the battle ends. Boromir is a one-man whirlwind of death, but eventually he's overcome by superior forces. Book Legolas, as opposed to movie Legolas, is successful because he stays the hell out of the thick of the fighting so he can snipe effectively. Everyone is focusing on what they do well and working as part of the group. (Groups are always more interesting than solitary heroes due to social dynamics). As the story unfolds, there's the sense that a random arrow can strike down one of the main characters at any time. That tension is something that's missing from a lot of the stories that are told today.

First Bold section: I like both of those, personally. It's actually part of what I like about the manga Fairy Tail: it has both of those, as well as having examples of those two things combined. Natsu: Overpowers foes, fueled by emotion and nakama-mahou. Grey: Outsmarts his foes. Erza: Overpowers AND outsmarts. And that's just from three of the main characters.

Second Bold section: While I understand why you lament this, there's actually a pretty good reason for many (most?) modern stories lacking that. The audience doesn't like it. I don't mean they don't like tension, I mean they don't like the idea that "a random arrow/bullet/whatever can strike down one of the main characters at any time." A very large portion of the modern fantasy audience WANTS the main character to be immune to death by random chance, even just the threat of death by random chance is distasteful to them. Tension can be created in many other ways, and in the good stories which lack this "threat of death by random things" tension is created in other ways.

Edited to add (I had kept the page open and forgot to refresh before responding after having been gone for a couple hours):


I hate it when the hero can take down tons of bad guys effortlessly, particularly when his opponents are supposed to be battlehardened warriors. Sometimes it seems like the hero is the only person in the world capable of kicking butt, and everyone else is just his target.
When you are surrounded by fifty enemies, it's time to either surrender or resort to trickery, not to smile and charge, knowing that a mere fifty men could never hope to defeat you, no matter how well armed and trained they are.
There's another thing. People who have never picked up a weapon in their life being able to defeat enemies who have been fighting since they could walk. Redwall is very guilty of this. How am I supposed to believe a group of kids can routinely beat over a dozen bloodthirsty bandits and barbarians over and over with no casualties at all? It gets ridiculous at times.

A couple responses to this: Regarding taking out tons of enemies - it all depends on setting. Sure, your farmboy with a sword who has no prophecies of destiny attached and no superpowers shouldn't be taking out 50 soldiers. Your Child of Destiny TM blessed with the power of MAGICAL MIGHT TM, on the other hand... why not? In many settings, there actually is an in-universe divide between the type of people who are mooks and the type of people who are heroes/villains, and I have no problem with the heroes in those settings mopping the floor with entire mook armies. A battle-hardened mook is still a mook.

Secondly, regarding Redwall specifically: 1) They're children's books. Of course the kids are going to be the heroes. 2) They have combat. Heroes must succeed in combat in books of the style that Redwall is. 3) The good guys always win is an actual axiom of reality itself when it comes to books of the style of Redwall.

Taking those three facts together results in what you see in Redwall. And this isn't a bad thing, for that style of book. Now, if you tried to create a "Realistic" fantasy setting and write a non-children's literature story in it and pulled the same things... THEN people would have a legitimate complaint. This is, in fact, one of the things about Eragon that is infuriating. (Despite the fact I actually enjoy the stories, to some extent, I acknowledge that they are not well-written.)

[mangosta71]

Second Bold section: While I understand why you lament this, there's actually a pretty good reason for many (most?) modern stories lacking that. The audience doesn't like it. I don't mean they don't like tension, I mean they don't like the idea that "a random arrow/bullet/whatever can strike down one of the main characters at any time." A very large portion of the modern fantasy audience WANTS the main character to be immune to death by random chance, even just the threat of death by random chance is distasteful to them. Tension can be created in many other ways, and in the good stories which lack this "threat of death by random things" tension is created in other ways.
There is nothing more boring (to me) than knowing that the protagonists are immune to everything the antagonists can throw at them. The characters don't actually have to die. How many people's hearts skipped a beat when Frodo got stabbed by the Witch-King on Weathertop? Or when the cave troll apparently ran him through in Moria? Or when Pippin was desperately searching the field for Merry after he fell in battle beside Eowyn? How relieved were we, even those of us who had read the books and were already familiar with the story, when they recovered? There are reasons the LotR movies are widely considered excellent, and I'm of the opinion that scenes such as those are at the top of the list.

A couple responses to this: Regarding taking out tons of enemies - it all depends on setting. Sure, your farmboy with a sword who has no prophecies of destiny attached and no superpowers shouldn't be taking out 50 soldiers. Your Child of Destiny TM blessed with the power of MAGICAL MIGHT TM, on the other hand... why not? In many settings, there actually is an in-universe divide between the type of people who are mooks and the type of people who are heroes/villains, and I have no problem with the heroes in those settings mopping the floor with entire mook armies. A battle-hardened mook is still a mook.
Part of what annoys me about these stories is that they reinforce the idea that you're either "chosen by destiny" or you're not, and if you're not you're SOL. You don't have to work hard to succeed. In fact, those "battle-hardened mooks", who have been training and working hard all their life, being slaughtered wholesale reinforces the idea that there's no reason to try. Look at all the spoiled brats with their sense of entitlement around you and tell me that people aren't subconsciously absorbing the idea that they're "chosen" and should therefore just have everything they want given to them with no effort on their part.

[Fiery Diamond]

There is nothing more boring (to me) than knowing that the protagonists are immune to everything the antagonists can throw at them. The characters don't actually have to die. How many people's hearts skipped a beat when Frodo got stabbed by the Witch-King on Weathertop? Or when the cave troll apparently ran him through in Moria? Or when Pippin was desperately searching the field for Merry after he fell in battle beside Eowyn? How relieved were we, even those of us who had read the books and were already familiar with the story, when they recovered? There are reasons the LotR movies are widely considered excellent, and I'm of the opinion that scenes such as those are at the top of the list.

Part of what annoys me about these stories is that they reinforce the idea that you're either "chosen by destiny" or you're not, and if you're not you're SOL. You don't have to work hard to succeed. In fact, those "battle-hardened mooks", who have been training and working hard all their life, being slaughtered wholesale reinforces the idea that there's no reason to try. Look at all the spoiled brats with their sense of entitlement around you and tell me that people aren't subconsciously absorbing the idea that they're "chosen" and should therefore just have everything they want given to them with no effort on their part.

Regarding the bold part first: You hate superhero stories, don't you? Because that's another example of it. A superhero with a fighting-focused power IS going to be able to take down dozens of people. It's only things like bullets that cause "normals" to be a physical threat. Now transplant that idea into a fantasy setting where the closest equivalent are arrows and include preternatural intuition/reflexes in the superperson's arsenal, and "normals" don't stand a chance.

Regarding the other part: There is a difference between "protagonists are immune to everything the antagonists can throw at them" and "protagonists are immune to everything mooks can throw at them." I'm not sure whether you're conflating the two or dismissing the entire concept of mooks as invalid. It's all relative and all has to do with what the challenge actually is. If your hero only ever fights people who can't harm him, yeah, that's boring. But saying "A hero who can't be killed by random soldier #3541 is boring" when the real antagonists for that character are people like Lord Master of the Empire of Flames and Dragon God of Doom is just as silly as saying "A hero who can't be killed by 5-year-olds is boring" when the setting is a realistic one involving army soldiers.

Edit: Also, you seem to be implying that LoTR hits some kind of objective sweet spot. It may be your personal subjective sweet spot, but it is only one kind of story among many, and it is no more valid than the others.

[JonestheSpy]

Also, you seem to be implying that LoTR hits some kind of objective sweet spot. It may be your personal subjective sweet spot, but it is only one kind of story among many, and it is no more valid than the others.

Perhaps he's implying the Lord of the Rings is commonly regarded as one of if not the greatest fantasy stories of all time, and thus it might be worthwhile to look to it for example?

Anyway, I think it boils down to context and writing ability. I'm cool with Cu Chulain killing destroying armies because it's myth, while the same thing in a modern novel would most likely come off as masturbatory power fantasy, annoying Mary Sueness, or both. But if done right, it's still okay. In Poul Anderson's classic Three Hearts and Three Lions (one of the big literary inspirations for Gary Gygax, btw) the hero single handedly puts the army of bad guys to flight, but only after he spends the entire book on a quest for the mythic-level magic sword that will restore him to his true self.

[warty goblin]

Perhaps he's implying the Lord of the Rings is commonly regarded as one of if not the greatest fantasy stories of all time, and thus it might be worthwhile to look to it for example?

Anyway, I think it boils down to context and writing ability. I'm cool with Cu Chulain killing destroying armies because it's myth, while the same thing in a modern novel would most likely come off as masturbatory power fantasy, annoying Mary Sueness, or both. But if done right, it's still okay. In Poul Anderson's classic Three Hearts and Three Lions (one of the big literary inspirations for Gary Gygax, btw) the hero single handedly puts the army of bad guys to flight, but only after he spends the entire book on a quest for the mythic-level magic sword that will restore him to his true self.

I think the key here is that in most mythology, the actual conflict is usually with the rules of heroism or even more broadly the society in which it takes place, not the enemy army. The drama in the Iliad or with Co Colain isn't if the hero's going to win the fight because everybody knows he will, it's how he resolves the contradictions that set up the story.

Most modern fantasy has the conflict be with the physical enemy though, not the conflicting subjectivities of the society in which the story takes place. This is pretty much inevitable, since modern fantasy takes place in made-up society, and it's the rare author with the skill to build multiple conflicting ideals into their world and then play them out through the characters. Even when they do the result's probably not as compelling as most mythologies, since a social order made up by one person isn't going to have the richness or raw believability of one created by thousands of people over hundreds of years.

[SuperFerret]

How am I supposed to believe a group of kids can routinely beat over a dozen bloodthirsty bandits and barbarians over and over with no casualties at all? It gets ridiculous at times.

This is why, for the most part, I hate the child hero archetype.

Avatar: The Last Airbender, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and (occasionally) Teen Titans are the only ones I'll accept.

It kind of undermines the mystique of the all-powerful BBEG if he's beaten by a kid (or group of kids).

[The Big Dice]

Anyway, I think it boils down to context and writing ability. I'm cool with Cu Chulain killing destroying armies because it's myth, while the same thing in a modern novel would most likely come off as masturbatory power fantasy, annoying Mary Sueness, or both. But if done right, it's still okay. In Poul Anderson's classic Three Hearts and Three Lions (one of the big literary inspirations for Gary Gygax, btw) the hero single handedly puts the army of bad guys to flight, but only after he spends the entire book on a quest for the mythic-level magic sword that will restore him to his true self.
Anderson's The Black Sword was better in my opinion. But then, I always liked Elric, and finding out that both Moorcock and Tolkien had drawn on similar sources, and that this science fiction writer had also done so, was a huge eye opener for teenage me.

And all of those books contain larger than life characters. Yes, they have human (or more than human) failings and weaknesses. But they are also filled with figures of crazy power, including the lead characters in all the books.

Armed with Stormbringer, Elric is more than a match for men and gods, armies and heroes. Scafloc, also armed with a black sword, kills men and trolls with equal abandon. And even suffers a similar fate to Elric. Though one less memorable and more faithful to the source material.

Fantasy warriors need to be powerful enough to deal with powerful threats. But they also need to be written by writers with talent, or they just become cardboard cutouts. Which is true of any character in any genre you care to read. The problem comes when you try to define power. Because it's a relative thing. If everyone is powerful, then really, everyone is on an even footing.

[Frozen_Feet]

Some of my favorite fights ever include Ulquiorra Vs. Ichigo, which includes the former throwing the latter through several stone pillars at once plus several explosions comparable to tactical nukes, and Six Paths of Pain Vs. Naruto/Kyuubi, which starts with flattening of a city, proceeds to leveling of acres of forest and flooding the resulting waste land, and then continues to laser beams and terraforming of a moon. Of course, the latter fight isn't so much a fight between warriors, as it's between an epic level Wizard and an abominable demon.

Kenpachi Vs. Nnoitra also deserves a mention, not the least because of the two, Kenpachi's superpowers amount to being really strong, really tough and having a sword.

In the fight, he causes half of the desert to billow up with his slashs, cuts through a man with skin literally as hard as iron, throws rocks sizes of small buildings, has a hole punched through him and almost gets cleaved in two, yadda yadda.

So the answer is - pretty darn powerful. Of course, hwo they relate to and fit in a setting is important. And generally, I don't like characters who get their power out of the woodwork. Of course, I might have a different idea of what that constitutes than majority.

[factotum]

Edit: Also, you seem to be implying that LoTR hits some kind of objective sweet spot. It may be your personal subjective sweet spot, but it is only one kind of story among many, and it is no more valid than the others.

I think what he's saying is that an army of Orcs in LOTR are *not* just waves of mooks to be cut down by the heroes without even mussing their hair, much less taking a wound--they're dangerous opponents who have to be fought. Boromir got killed taking down twenty or so of them. Even in the Silmarillion, where the heroes are generally much more powerful than LOTR, an army of orcs is something to be feared!

I don't think there's anyone or anything in Tolkien's works that you could describe as a "mook"--e.g. a small speedbump to be carved out of the way with minimum fuss on the way to the Big Bad.

[chiasaur11]

Regarding the bold part first: You hate superhero stories, don't you? Because that's another example of it. A superhero with a fighting-focused power IS going to be able to take down dozens of people. It's only things like bullets that cause "normals" to be a physical threat. Now transplant that idea into a fantasy setting where the closest equivalent are arrows and include preternatural intuition/reflexes in the superperson's arsenal, and "normals" don't stand a chance.


Superfolks have it less bad.

Ignoring Kent and his level, hard work pays off in the ability to jam with the best.

Let's look at four members of the Avengers.

Handsome Hank McCoy, the Boisterous Beast, is a mutant. Super fast, strong, and agile. He can take a room full of HYDRA agents without breaking stride.

So can Steve Rodgers, Captain America. He works out to stay at the peak of human skill, but he got his abilities from a government experiment. Same room clearing.

Then there's Anthony Stark. Iron Man. Not too hot in a fight outside the suit, but when he's in it, he can tangle with gods and monsters, no problem. All on his own skill and effort.

And finally, we have Carnie Clint Barton. When we go by the standard measures, he's out of luck. No destiny. No lineage worth anything. All that happened to him? As a kid he joined a carnival and practiced his butt off. Archery, mainly, but anything that could pay off in a fight, he worked at. Standard fantasy, he's doomed.

Comics? It turns out a really hard working, clever guy who's not afraid to fight dirty can hold his own anywhere.

And that's ignoring Batman.

[mangosta71]

I'm not saying that LotR is the best fantasy ever written, or even my favorite. But it's very good, instantly recognizable, and pretty much everyone in the discussion is familiar with it, so it's an ideal example. There is tension because the heroes do get injured (sometimes severely) and there appears to be a real possibility of them dying at any time, and the audience seems to love it. The Wheel of Time is similar - the audience knows that none of the main three are going to die before the Last Battle (though there, all bets are off), but the threats they face can easily kill them if they're not careful.

As for mooks, I just don't see what purpose they serve in the narrative. If they're not a threat to the hero, why is the hero fighting them? Or, more to the point, why is the author wasting my time by going into detail about these fights that are completely irrelevant? I get that they want to show off how cool the hero is, but I'm more impressed when the guys he's fighting are a challenge. That has the added benefit of hinting at limitations, so I have some idea of what the guy is capable of, which makes it easier for me to relate to the character. A hero with real weaknesses and limits is a far more compelling hero to me.

And, since you asked, yes, I do dislike most superhero stories. But then, most of them are doing the flat-out overpower thing that doesn't match my preferences. I can often enjoy Spiderman and Batman because they usually have to outthink or outmaneuver their opponents.

[MachFarcon]

Story sets how powerful the warrior I can tolerate. In Lord of the Rings, anything more powerful then very skilled warriors is too much. But, if say, there is only one man that can stand up to an army of 10,000; then I would have no problem with him either killing them all or even going to fight them knowing that they would die.

Story is what makes it believable or tolerable. Tension isn't always only brought on by the fact that the hero can get hurt, it maybe be brought on by the fact that he simply can't kill the army fast enough to save his city.

[Eldonauran]

Hmm...

Really easy for me to describe my idea on them.

Fantasy warriors can (at best) bend the laws of physics, almost to the point of breaking, but are still limited by them. Super strength? Ok. Jumping over a 3rd story building? Ok. Flying ... Not without some means of propulsion. Think Matrix, but not Neo.

Special powers should allow these fantasy warriors to break the laws of physics in limited or very selective ways. Special powers should also come with a special weakness.


If this does boil down to warrior vs wizard, I've always been of the mind that the warrior is going to lose, unless he get really, really lucky. Physics vs magic will always end badly for physics.

Physics: RRRAAWWWRRR!
Magic: Sleep...
Physics: ZzzzZzzz...

[Z3ro]

I'm not saying that LotR is the best fantasy ever written, or even my favorite. But it's very good, instantly recognizable, and pretty much everyone in the discussion is familiar with it, so it's an ideal example. There is tension because the heroes do get injured (sometimes severely) and there appears to be a real possibility of them dying at any time, and the audience seems to love it. The Wheel of Time is similar - the audience knows that none of the main three are going to die before the Last Battle (though there, all bets are off), but the threats they face can easily kill them if they're not careful.

As for mooks, I just don't see what purpose they serve in the narrative. If they're not a threat to the hero, why is the hero fighting them? Or, more to the point, why is the author wasting my time by going into detail about these fights that are completely irrelevant? I get that they want to show off how cool the hero is, but I'm more impressed when the guys he's fighting are a challenge. That has the added benefit of hinting at limitations, so I have some idea of what the guy is capable of, which makes it easier for me to relate to the character. A hero with real weaknesses and limits is a far more compelling hero to me.

And, since you asked, yes, I do dislike most superhero stories. But then, most of them are doing the flat-out overpower thing that doesn't match my preferences. I can often enjoy Spiderman and Batman because they usually have to outthink or outmaneuver their opponents.

I find it curious that you keep referencing LotR to make your point. I feel those stories tell the opposite tale.

Almost every time a character is wounded or killed, it's by a major antagonist. Frodo is stabbed by the WitchKing, then by the cave troll (not a major villian but still a serious threat, certainly no mook). Gandalf gets taken down by a Balrog. Eowyn and Merry are wounded again fighting the WitchKing. None of these are trivial encounters. Every time random orcs fight the heros the orcs die with out much damage to the heros. Even when Boromir was killed it took literally dozens of orcs to do it.

The Silmarilion was way worse, too. I mean in the extreme, you have Hurin, who killed 70 trolls in one fight, and Turin, who orcs would run from. These were definetely mooks for the heros to mow through.

[warty goblin]

I find it curious that you keep referencing LotR to make your point. I feel those stories tell the opposite tale.

Almost every time a character is wounded or killed, it's by a major antagonist. Frodo is stabbed by the WitchKing, then by the cave troll (not a major villian but still a serious threat, certainly no mook). Gandalf gets taken down by a Balrog. Eowyn and Merry are wounded again fighting the WitchKing. None of these are trivial encounters. Every time random orcs fight the heros the orcs die with out much damage to the heros. Even when Boromir was killed it took literally dozens of orcs to do it.

Technically in the books Frodo was stabbed by an orc champion sorta deal, which is probably a significant step down from cave troll.

Regardless, the Fellowship always treats orcs as a legitimate and serious threat, and goes to pains to avoid fighting them. That's a very different tone than what you see in a lot of modern fantasy where the protagonists won't even worry about anything less than a troll.


The Silmarilion was way worse, too. I mean in the extreme, you have Hurin, who killed 70 trolls in one fight, and Turin, who orcs would run from. These were definetely mooks for the heros to mow through.
I figured orcs' fear of Turin had at least as much to do with his mastery of asymmetric low-intensity warfare as it did his individual prowess in battle.

[Lord Raziere]

ah, yeah that would be a good idea: have smart protagonists that avoid armies and fighting large groups of people on their own, would be a good thing to put into my books.....

[factotum]

Even when Boromir was killed it took literally dozens of orcs to do it.


We don't know how many orcs it took to do it--we know he took 20 at least down with him, but you'll note that the tone of the book at this point indicates this is a pretty amazing feat on Boromir's part! And the simple fact Boromir did actually die indicates that even a smallish group of orcs like that is a grave threat to the heroes, which is entirely the opposite of a mass of mooks who they carve through without any difficulty.

[hamishspence]

Technically in the books Frodo was stabbed by an orc champion sorta deal, which is probably a significant step down from cave troll.

There was a theory that this orc was evidence of the most powerful orcs being of Maiar origin- since there was "a flash like flame" when Aragorn struck the orc in the head.

[Liffguard]

Sort-of on topic. I remember David Gemmell once did something interesting with your standard "invincible" hero. Decado was by far the greatest swordsman alive. He came to the conclusion that everyone he'd ever fought was so far below him as to be effectively defenseless and therefore he was a murderer. He had a fairly major mental breakdown and retreated from the world to a monastery to deal with his guilt.

[Z3ro]

Technically in the books Frodo was stabbed by an orc champion sorta deal, which is probably a significant step down from cave troll.

Regardless, the Fellowship always treats orcs as a legitimate and serious threat, and goes to pains to avoid fighting them. That's a very different tone than what you see in a lot of modern fantasy where the protagonists won't even worry about anything less than a troll.

Even if the party treats them like a legitimate threat, they're not. Except for Boromir, no major character is killed by orcs, and we routinely see the heros face off against absurd numbers of them; see Legolas and Gimli at Helm's deep.

You can argue that Tolkien does a good job of making them feel like a threat, but at no point are they really.



I figured orcs' fear of Turin had at least as much to do with his mastery of asymmetric low-intensity warfare as it did his individual prowess in battle.

I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure they specifically reference orcs running at the mere sight of Turin, not his battle tactics.


We don't know how many orcs it took to do it--we know he took 20 at least down with him, but you'll note that the tone of the book at this point indicates this is a pretty amazing feat on Boromir's part! And the simple fact Boromir did actually die indicates that even a smallish group of orcs like that is a grave threat to the heroes, which is entirely the opposite of a mass of mooks who they carve through without any difficulty.

But that's the only time anything like that happens in the books. Literally every other time they fight any group they come out victorious and usually unscathed, even against terrible odds.

[Callos_DeTerran]

This is an odd question to answer and a lot of it depends on how competent the writer/player/whatever in question is, but at a certain point I can't call a fantasy warrior a warrior any more. Sure, there's obvious feats of strength/speed/what-have-you that look supernatural but can be described as just being that strong/fast/skilled/what-have-you, however I still draw a line. Conan hits my sweet spot for fantasy warriors, not my upper limit, but that's how powerful I prefer martial characters because it just seems so much more heroic.

He's honestly challenged and in danger by most things he comes across and the stuff he pulls off can't just be described as 'magic, just replace staff with sword'. I'm also pretty okay with warriors using powerful magical items to accomplish astounding feats, cause the source of the astounding feats is pretty obvious, but the upper levels of what 'supernatural' kung-fu (not from say...Exalted, mind you) where warriors are able to utilize their inner energy to do crazy things is where I draw the line at calling somebody a warrior still. Anything beyond that, and even some particular things below it, and I don't consider the character in question a 'warrior' anymore, despite what he/she may call themselves and what other people call them.

I have the same problem with Sidereal Martial Arts in Exalted and some of the Celestial styles. At a certain point, you can't call it martial arts anymore, it's just magic you cast in a weird way when you're not acting somewhat like a real warrior.

[warty goblin]

There was a theory that this orc was evidence of the most powerful orcs being of Maiar origin- since there was "a flash like flame" when Aragorn struck the orc in the head.

This theory is baseless. Aragorn killed the orc with Anduril, which is described as flashing pretty frequently, and whose name translates as "Flame of the West."Nor, unless I'm forgetting something, is there ever a reference to an orc of Maia extraction. There is only one count of a Maiar partnering with one of the ordinary races, and that was Melian with Thingol, whose only child was Luthien who certainly didn't have any offspring who would have ended up intermingling with orcs. Finally when Saruman, the only Maiar we actually see die, I don't believe there was a flash. What we're looking at here is fanwank, nothing more.


Even if the party treats them like a legitimate threat, they're not. Except for Boromir, no major character is killed by orcs, and we routinely see the heros face off against absurd numbers of them; see Legolas and Gimli at Helm's deep.

Gimli and Legolas faced off against a lot of orcs during the storming of a very well built fortress. A castle like Helm's Deep is usually considered at least a sixfold force multiplier for a reason; it gives the defenders an absolutely staggering advantage. Nor were they fighting alone, Helm's Deep was fairly well defended.


You can argue that Tolkien does a good job of making them feel like a threat, but at no point are they really.
This is a nearly meaningless distinction; externally the audience is always going to know that most if not all the heroes are going to survive in the vast majority of stories ever written. The only thing that makes any particular enemy seem a threat is how seriously the characters take it.


I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure they specifically reference orcs running at the mere sight of Turin, not his battle tactics.
That's not terribly inconsistent with being afraid of him because of his tactics. After all if you see a very good guerilla fighter it's quite possibly because he wants to be seen. Usually that would mean things start to go very wrong for you. Not that Turin wasn't seriously good at killing things mind, but it's pretty clear from the books that he also fought smart.




But that's the only time anything like that happens in the books. Literally every other time they fight any group they come out victorious and usually unscathed, even against terrible odds.
Pretty much the only other time the Fellowship fights a group without an army involved is in Moria. There they do kill the first wave of orcs, but Frodo would have been killed if it wasn't for his mithril shirt.

[Z3ro]

I'm not going to argue the rest of the points because I feel I've made my case, but this,

This is a nearly meaningless distinction; externally the audience is always going to know that most if not all the heroes are going to survive in the vast majority of stories ever written. The only thing that makes any particular enemy seem a threat is how seriously the characters take it.

does warrant further discussion. The distinction between what the characters think and what the audience thinks is important. If the characters think something, but the audience knows different, it affects how we receive the story.

A great example of this is how in most books, we know the main character will live; what matters is the struggle. But you can go too far into this; if we have knowledge the characters do not, such as they're an invincible demi-god, that can change how we read it. All the suspense and tension gets sucked out of it; we know the character will live, even if they don't. How far this can be taken is up to the reader.

I'm not saying LotR necassarily does this. As I said, that's up to the reader to decide if things go too far. It's my opinion, however, that as a reader, I never felt that one of the main characters would be killed by some nameless orc; they just weren't credible threats.

[Xondoure]

I'm not going to argue the rest of the points because I feel I've made my case, but this,

does warrant further discussion. The distinction between what the characters think and what the audience thinks is important. If the characters think something, but the audience knows different, it affects how we receive the story.

A great example of this is how in most books, we know the main character will live; what matters is the struggle. But you can go too far into this; if we have knowledge the characters do not, such as they're an invincible demi-god, that can change how we read it. All the suspense and tension gets sucked out of it; we know the character will live, even if they don't. How far this can be taken is up to the reader.

I'm not saying LotR necassarily does this. As I said, that's up to the reader to decide if things go too far. It's my opinion, however, that as a reader, I never felt that one of the main characters would be killed by some nameless orc; they just weren't credible threats.

Which could have been your bias from other literary works seeing as someone from our media just wouldn't expect random orcs to be a threat. Food for thought at least.

[Zaydos]

As a note the heroes in The Simarilion are of a whole different level than those of The Lord of the Rings, and this was quite intentional; just like the Aesir and heroes from the Mythic Sagas (Volsung's Saga, Hrolf Kralki's Saga, etc) are on a whole different level than those of the Historical Sagas (with the possible exception of Grettir). In the Simarilion you have elves fighting the strongest balrog ever, and characters who can beat Sauron in direct confrontation, they're actually far far beyond the characters of the Mythic Sagas. In the Lord of the Rings the characters are much more human and vulnerable, and personally I like that better.

I bring up sagas and Aesir because this was Tolkien's field of study and his books are heavily influenced by them, as well as English literature from a similar time period (Smaug is a combination of Fafnir and the fire drake from Beowulf for example, Narsil is the sword Gram, and Gollum is the dwarf who cursed the ring of the Nibbelungs, etc).

[Wardog]

As many others have said before me, it depends on the setting and the theme of the story. What really matters is that there is still room for drama and tension. (Either because their opponents are comparably powerful, or because the ultimate goal or obstacle is not something that can be overcome by raw power).

Robin Hood and Conan are basically "normal" people who are "merely" the best in the world at what they do best (and flaws to balance them).

The Cu Chulainn myths (and a lot of the other Irish legends) are effectively Tengen Toppa Gurren-Lagann with spears instead of galaxy-sized mecha.