Archetypes revisited.

[AxeMental]

One imagines that if they created D&D they would have come up with identicle artchetypes that Gygax and friends came up with. However, I think this is more a matter of being in the ruts too long. I have always felt that we just got to used to doing things "that way", and that other catagories exist.

The Fighter, thief, cleric, magic user set is the most popular, but has anyone seen any other sets in later FRPGs, or do they all share the same combination with perhaps different titles (or blended with skills)?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Rolemaster goes with:

Non-spell user (subsumes fighter, thief, monk etc.)
Semi-spell user (subsumes ranger, paladin, bard etc.)
Essence spell user (subsumes wizard-type classes)
Chanelling spell user (subsumes cleric/druid type classes)
Mentalism spell user (kind of psionic, but not gay).

I'd personally ditch that and run with:

Melee (fighter, thief, monk if you really have to have monks)
Priest (cleric, druid)
Arcane (wizard, illusionist, necromancer)

[foster1941]

The three core D&D archetypes of hero/ego (i.e. fighter), benevolent father-figure/wiseman/mentor/superego (i.e. magic-user) and nurturing mother-figure/aid-giver (i.e. cleric -- note that I've redefined these a bit to better separate the magic-user and cleric roles since last time I posted on this subject) are pretty universal. D&D's ostensible 'thief' archetype IMO is false in that it actually conflates two disparate archetypes, the trickster/rule-breaker/id (better represented IMO by the elf) and the expert/'practical knowledge guy'/reliable uncle-figure (better represented by the dwarf) -- by combining these archetypes the D&D thief class tries to make Han Solo and Chewbacca into a single character. The other core archetype is the maiden/innocent-in-need-of-protection figure, represented in D&D by the hobbit.

These archetypes are pretty universal to rpgs, not necessarily because of D&D's influence, but because they're pretty universal to all literature. The key to using archetypes in a way that isn't derivative of D&D is to avoid the false 'thief' archetype, and recognize that the guy who knows how to open locks and disarm traps and generally solve problems through application of practical skill isn't necessarily the same as the guy who sneaks around and attacks from ambush and generally doesn't 'play fair.'

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I think Foster's agreeing with me about the melee/priest/arcane dichotomy.

Interesting that you see fighters and wizards as masculine and clerics as feminine btw.

[AxeMental]

I'll have to check out Rolemaster one of these days.

TFoster, very interesting. I never really looked that deep into the underlying psychological figures the three core classes fit. I wonder if Gygax created these 3 core figures (as you described) consciously or not (though he would likely never admit it). The cleric is an interesting one, particularly since it does not exist in most liturature (not to a great extent anyway). The thief, I believe, was included in D&D to allow humans to act in sneaky ways. The problem with having to jump to playing an elf or dwarf is that these are alien and really never can be related to, and after all this is a human-centric game. It's interesting that you point out the difference between the person who gets past traps, locks etc. and the one that attacks in an unfair manner (ie from behind to kill). Though, I would argue that todays real world thugs do this (cut wire to alarm siren, break into house, tie victims up while robbing them, sometimes killing them so they can't be IDed.

It might be interesting to break the thief class up into a bandit class and give the ability to find traps and open locks to high dex PCs.

[BonesMcCoy]

Jeezus Foster! I think you've been going to the Gene Weigel school of message board posting - I can only understand perhaps 20+1d20% of what you posted there. So MUs are our fathers and clerics are really our need for mothers? And the Elf is the tricky guy while the dwarfs are all reliable uncles? Gotcha.

I thought the division was 'these guys fight good' - 'these guys cast magic spells' - 'these guys pray and can heal' - and last, and often least, 'these guys sneak'.

I think we should throw bards in the mix too - 'these guys sing'. Coz bards are cool and everyone loves bards. Howzzat?

[foster1941]

BonesMcCoy said:

I thought the division was 'these guys fight good' - 'these guys cast magic spells' - 'these guys pray and can heal' - and last, and often least, 'these guys sneak'.

Yup, that works. But per my breakdown above I'd add 'these guys fix stuff' and 'these guys tag along and don't really do much of anything' -- you can probably fit bards into the last category

[order99]

No love for Bards?
I like the IDEA of the Bard...but I don't consider it an Archetype.
The Skald is a high CHA Fighter who performs(song,story,etc.).
The Troubador is a high CHA Thief who perform/composes.
The historic Celtic Bard seems to be a Druid-in-training with a fantastic memory who teaches as well as performs-so,Druid with good WIS and CHA. Using the simplified archetypes above then,we could use the Wizard or Cleric since Druid wasn't mentioned.