Curse

captain_carter · Feb 02, 2008, 11:36 PM // 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo the Capitalist

Let me put this in Islamic relations for our other crowds who do not understand Western historical Figures.
Fighter= Tariq of the rock
Wizard=Balaam
Monk=Muhammad

I don't claim to have a great knowledge of Islam, but I did study it for half of a poorly taught half-GCSE.

I have never heard of Muhammad performing any actions that would be related to the RPG monk. I also can't see that kind of claim being taken well given what Muslims supposedly think of the Christian claims about Jesus.

It's possible that I fail to understand what you mean here, but I fail to see the purpose, from an RPG point of view, of a monk that can have no impact whatsoever. I don't think a monk that cannot heal (or protect or cause damage) would have much use, other than possibly to absorb a small amount of damage. I therefore logically conclude that the monk to which we are reffering is the kind that performs miracles, or can summon the power of god(s). These are 2 things that I see having very little connection to a prophet who never performed any miracles.

I would also like to question why a fighter or a mage cannot sneak around and steal things, or perform any other actions you desire a thief to perform.

I would suggest that we should be thinking more along the lines of:
-user of magic
-user of non-magical weapons/methods

Rhedd · Feb 02, 2008, 11:49 PM // 23:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eon Ryax

Just a couple of quick clarifications - not to troll, mind you, but to hopefully add something here.

First, the idea of the archetype was popularized by Carl Jung, one of Freud's students, who didn't buy into the whole carrot=penis, mother=buried incest thing. He believed that our lives are run instead by a sort of collective unconscious that fed into one of several archetypes, which was usually supplemented by a secondary. These include the self, secondary, shadow, anima, and so on. Jung got these ideas from mythology and "ancient" fantasy. Heros like Beowulf and Robin Hood, and villians such as Grendel and Loki even fall into these categories. Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth", and "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" expand on these ideas.

Second, Tolkein was not the first to think of elves, trolls, etc. Most of Tolkien's ideas were pulled from British, Scottish, and Irish mythology. Elves in Ireland were, in the beginning, as tall as men, if not taller, and were known originally as the Tuatha Dé Danann. Trolls, ettins, ettercaps, and others, including treants, were old characters from druidic myth. Tolkein was also not the first to devise of the idea that the Uruk-Hai were elves gone bad, as again, in Irish mythology, during the rule of the Tuatha, a sect of the elves broke off and became the Sinn Fein. Tolkein's change here is mostly cosmetic. Even dwarves and dragons are not original to Tolkein, as they have a long history in Norse mythology, back to the Nibelung Saga, and farther back still in Eastern tradition.

TROLL!! heheh

Yep, the Wikipedia definition of archetype, which TwinRaven quoted, kind of sucks.

An archetype isn't just a sort of mold or template. It's not a typical character, it's prototypical. It's... archetypical. Gasp!

An archetype isn't just a way of categorizing something, it's a basic truth that resonates (supposedly) deep within our very being. Something we know is right and true at its core, regardless of temporary trappings.

That's why these D&D derived standard "classes", which people KEEP discussing as if they're set in stone, have nothing to do with archetypes.

The Mage, Warrior, Cleric, etc. are simply ways of codifying a set of rules to encourage a player to play a certain role, which should ideally be an archetype, but they're still just over-simplified rules.

What you say, Eon, about Tolkien's inspiration is exactly correct (well, maybe not every detail- his Elves are more Scandinavian- but in general, definitely), and that's why his works are still read and loved, long after his death.

Will R. A. Salvatore's books still be read sixty years from now? I can't actually see the future, but I'm still going to say... No. Neither will any of the books by any of the people that draw their inspiration from Salvatore or the same watered-down source material.

You have to dig deeper. You have to hit things that resonate deep within people, and for that, you have to go back to the actual archetypes, not the diluted, simplified concoctions which make for convenient game systems.

Modern fantasy is, to me, like classical music would be if all classical music was based off of a guy who heard Bach played once by a street performer on a pennywhistle, and decided that it would sound even edgier on a kazoo.

Forget the Cleric/Mage/Warrior crap and go back to the roots, and you'll be amazed at how wonderful fantasy fiction can be.

Or everyone could at least go read Tolkien again, to remind yourself that it's really nothing at all like D&D. ^_^

TwinRaven · Feb 03, 2008, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhedd

TROLL!! heheh

Yep, the Wikipedia definition of archetype, which TwinRaven quoted, kind of sucks.

An archetype isn't just a sort of mold or template. It's not a typical character, it's prototypical. It's... archetypical. Gasp!

An archetype isn't just a way of categorizing something, it's a basic truth that resonates (supposedly) deep within our very being. Something we know is right and true at its core, regardless of temporary trappings.

That's why these D&D derived standard "classes", which people KEEP discussing as if they're set in stone, have nothing to do with archetypes.

The Mage, Warrior, Cleric, etc. are simply ways of codifying a set of rules to encourage a player to play a certain role, which should ideally be an archetype, but they're still just over-simplified rules.

What you say, Eon, about Tolkien's inspiration is exactly correct (well, maybe not every detail- his Elves are more Scandinavian- but in general, definitely), and that's why his works are still read and loved, long after his death.

Will R. A. Salvatore's books still be read sixty years from now? I can't actually see the future, but I'm still going to say... No. Neither will any of the books by any of the people that draw their inspiration from Salvatore or the same watered-down source material.

You have to dig deeper. You have to hit things that resonate deep within people, and for that, you have to go back to the actual archetypes, not the diluted, simplified concoctions which make for convenient game systems.

Modern fantasy is, to me, like classical music would be if all classical music was based off of a guy who heard Bach played once by a street performer on a pennywhistle, and decided that it would sound even edgier on a kazoo.

Forget the Cleric/Mage/Warrior crap and go back to the roots, and you'll be amazed at how wonderful fantasy fiction can be.

Or everyone could at least go read Tolkien again, to remind yourself that it's really nothing at all like D&D. ^_^

NOW, we're getting somewhere! Agreed, reference sucks a bit, I've no excuse for it (laziness maybe). I suppose I appreciate Jung a bit for his attempt to subvert the notion than every elongated item and every item with a hole in it means something sexual. His archetypes as listed in that particular site, are a a bit weak. I suppose a reference to Writing 101 and the 16 master archetypes would be closer to the root of it. You can also find good information on archetypes while looking through Joseph Campbell's Journey of a hero....Campbell tends to strike hard at the idea that these figures are common through all our collective pasts.

I see you point that classes are not archetypes, however, I do beleive they have a bit of a role in facilitating character developement when playing D&D. Character and Role in the old PnP RPGs often emulate the archetypical. The archetypes are often shown in deciding what course your character is likely to take. Race and class are part of the back-story of your character which determins if your character is reluctant hero, failed hero, doomed lover, etc. Facilitating the story, as we play through our characters, we draw on them.

As for Tolkien...I was trying to use a somewhat contemporary source (know your reader). I collect fairy tale and folklore from around the world (old books and new). I have taught high school creative writing, but my real forte is visual arts (as is probably obvius, given my spelling). I hate to see people falling into the idea that there is no depth to their character and just playing whack, cast, poke.

Literature is full of archetypes, of course, but they have also popped up in other aspects of ancient life and followed us into the present. Tarot cards and Astrology are filled with them. All of the myths, folktales a folklore passed through the ages are stuffed with images we see over and over...the Failed Hero/Fool (Rurik), The Betrayer (Justiciar Hablion), The Deciever (Vizier Khilbron)...and what role does the player play? Reluctant Hero, Fool (Leeeeroy Jenkiiiins!!!)...? Even at the begining of Morrowind, there's an extensive list of characteristics you pick for your character that are based on these archetypes (more so in Oblivion).

In Guild Wars we are given a choice of 10 professions. Each profession lends itself to literary/mythological archetype as they seem to be based on characters we have become familiar with over centuries of collective storytelling. As with any story, there is a hero. As with any RPG YOU are the hero....to help facilitate the story, you get to customize your character based on how you see yourself (hate to bring up Jung here, but there is a psychology to character creation and profession preference). Ultimately, if you play through the story, you are the hero GW's writers say you are...but variation comes through your choices before you begin the game.

We can look at each class in terms of its image and purpose and then draw connections to familiar archetypes, but without the player driving that avatar through the game, there is nothing but image and no substance.

That said: Maybe I should rephrase/rethink my OP. Maybe I should be asking "What archetypical character do you play?" and leave the image out of it. Images facilitate the character, but are not the character. Anyone can play the Fool, no matter what profession...though, the Juggarnaut (Tank), is likely to be Warrior or Dervish. The Mage is the "Truth-seeker" studying and looking for knowledge for its own sake...How can we say all casters fall into this category? Only a few players really study the skills, collect them all and seek to find all they can in terms of how they work...Anyone who plays this way, no matter the profession, is playing the Mage.

The original Ritualist image I was looking at, The Mystic/Shaman, has been around a long time...what struck me was the image I found that looked so much like the GW ritualist, I couldn't help but wonder the parallel...Last night I was watching "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and saw robed and blindfolded characters...leading me to beleive it is more common that I originally thought. Though, the Renderosity image may be a clear rip-off.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Phoenix Tears · Feb 03, 2008, 08:43 PM // 20:43

My archtypes:

Warrior
Archer
Priest
Magician
Thief
Merchant

Imo the holy trinity is incorrect, it must be at least the evil 6 XD 666 ^^

zwei2stein · Feb 03, 2008, 08:50 PM // 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix Tears

My archtypes:

Warrior
Archer
Priest
Magician
Thief
Merchant

Imo the holy trinity is incorrect, it must be at least the evil 6 XD 666 ^^

Shhh, let TwinRaven and Rhedd do the talking in this actually interesting thread.