Then just give him all 18s and say he was, as his propaganda implied, demi-divine.
ACKS spends a great deal of energy on the idea that one can accomplish great things without idealized ability scores, after all, and it is not like the scores will materially affect the character build as much as the proficiency selection will.
For myself, I aim conservatively: the biography gives evidence for a score of “at least X,” so I give the person X. And with masters of propaganda like Alexander, even more so ;-).
Which is why I said “I am unconvinced” rather than “you are wrong.” To me, Alexander’s accomplishments can be explained with lower DEX and CON scores, so I would give him those lower scores. His CHA is the only thing I think is inarguable, although the INT comes close.
“ACKS spends a great deal of energy on the idea that one can accomplish great things without idealized ability scores”
This. There’s no heroism in conquering the world with stats like those; to do any less is a disappointment I’d rather reduce the scores a little, give him the benefit of the doubt on some lucky rolls throughout his career, and be able to say to my players “You don’t need quadruple 18s to conquer the world. Just look at this guy!” But that’s preferential on my end.
I think Alexander qualifies as much as anyone who is real for those kind of scores. How many other figures in history accomplished so much that even now we see the effects they had on the world?
I think the problem is what you touched on. Attributes in reality aren’t random but are the result of training, genetics and nutrition. They also aren’t frozen like they are in early D&D. People change and improve which isn’t reflected well in level systems (except for someone’s killing ability).
So yeah my reaction at first was too high, in retrospect I think I’m good with it.
I would also be interested in seeing at least a few women on that list. While there are no world-conquering women in antiquity that I am familiar with (Fu Hao, maybe? That was mostly to retain an existing empire, though . . .), not everyone on the list above were, either.
Sadly, I’m not knowledgeable enough about history to make very many suggestions: most of what I know is from very casual reading to establish flavor for this or that campaign setting ;-).
There were a few good female leaders mentioned in Civilization V: Theodora of the Byzantine Empire and Boudica of the Celts. Of course, I don’t know enough about history to know much about them.
There have been some strong female leaders in history (Elizabeth I, for example), but most have not generally been "great captains" in the sense of battlefield commanders. Theodora, a formidable woman by any measure, was Emperor Justinian's wife, and Justinian himself retained Belisarius as his battlefield commander.
I think that if Joan is the main one you feel you have enough information to provide canon stats for (which is understandable and perfectly reasonable), that it would be better to leave the women out entirely.
I can use the examples you provide as a baseline for comparison, and there won’t be any Amelia Earhart* issues with my players.
And sorry: I didn’t mean to start a discussion down this path, and I’m bailing out now ;-).
Yeah... There were competent female battlefield commanders from time to time, but none have become as famous as, e.g., Hannibal, Julius Caesar, or Genghis. Joan of Arc is quite famous, but mostly for her religious zealotry and sad death. I doubt many people could even say what war she fought in or name a battle she won! The only others that immediately come to mind are: Boudica, Margaret of Anjou, and Zenobia of Palmyra.
I personally am fascinated by the confrontation of Aurelian and Zenobia, but neither of them is well known outside of narrow circles. Boudica might actually be the best choice as I think she's someone who I could say an ACKS player rolling up.
It seems as though the odds are stacked against women in history. We’re looking specifically at warrior-captains, for which many of these eras would be actively discouraging female participation, and even those women who could gain a little infamy would have had to contend with male history writers. Unfortunately I’m not enough of a history buff to list off any possible candidates.
On the importance of good stats I have to say:
We were playing with my new level 1 party today when they met some 6 goblins. One round later 3 gobbos and the party fighter were dead so Dolm the level 0 torchbearer took his strength of 5 and the polearm they had given him and went on to slaughter the other three goblins including their champion, one per round while the party stood there being generally useless and not hitting anything.
So of course its one thing to do this once and another to do it from Greece to India but skills will only get you so far without luck. I guess what Im saying here is that in my opinion 2 - 3 18`s would have been enough but 4 is fine too.
I`m more interested in the choice of proficiencies anyway and those look right on to me.
I’d rather reduce the scores a little, give him the benefit of the doubt on some lucky rolls throughout his career, and be able to say to my players “You don’t need quadruple 18s to conquer the world. Just look at this guy!” But that’s preferential on my end.