Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

I think the point of contention here is not that 1E was archetypal, but that the 1E classes were somehow based on Jungian archetypes

There are many systems other then Jung's, it was only 1 example I used. So pick which ever.


Archetypes do exist in AD&D as do stereotypes, and types. And they exist in 3E.

Aaron L said:

I think the point of contention here is not that 1E was archetypal, but that the 1E classes were somehow based on Jungian archetypes that everyone will instinctively understand, and that 3E somehow "dilutes" these "pure" archetypal classes into some sort of debased game designed for collectible card game players.

It's reading quite a bit further into the game than I believe Mr. Gygax ever intended.

Click to expand...

It's actually virtually impossible to "miss" an archetype. One could easily create a game, any game, and the players will find themselves in roles that fit Jungian philosophy in the same way that a writer might write a novel and (surprise surprise!) at least one of those characters fits an archetype.

We don't even need to consult Mr. Gygax. We just need to look at the game. Sure, 1E contains archetypes, but so does 3E (and both facts are more of an inevitability rather than an intent). If you want to look at it from an intention standpoint, the original classes one could choose doesn't really cover all the possible archetypes. Some, yes (in the same way that if you throw a pebble at an army of ants, you're sure you'll hit one, but not sure which one), but there are a lot more archetypes than 1E classes.

And again, I think the main point of the thread starter isn't really about archetypes, but simplicity of play, stereotypes, and literary character conversions. And on the part of stereotypes, part of the reason why "mages running in armor" seems so exotic is because D&D itself was the cause of it. Actually in a pre-D&D world, mages don't really wear armor because of a variety of reasons. Here's some: 1) "wise-old-man archetype" - they advise, they don't adventure; why wear protective clothing? 2) they're confident of their abilities that they don't want to burden themselves with clunky stuff such as armor 3) their inevitable nemesis are other mages, at which point armor would be meaningless 4) a number of mages are old men and if you're physically weak, do you really think you have the strength to wear armor?

Of course D&D wizards are far from the "wise old man" archetype and are actually heroes, tricksters, or the ubermensch archetype, because they're out there adventuring rather than simply advising. As to why Gygax decided mages shouldn't wear armor is up to him, but one reason why armor-touting wizards is so strange is because D&D made the stereotype of mages not wearing armor. And while everyone in the West was playing Street Fighter II on their consoles, the Japanese were playing video game RPGs which were greatly influenced by D&D itself, and so you have mage characters in games like Final Fantasy wearing stuff like robes and capes instead of breastplates and chain shirts. And somehow that made it to the collective consciousness of the 90's. Of course armor as protection is merely a flavor thing as there are other ways of protecting one's self as a mage (mage armor, shield, ring of protection, high Dex) whether in 1E or 3E.

Charlesatan, "As to why Gygax decided mages shouldn't wear armor is up to him, but one reason why armor-touting wizards is so strange is because D&D made the stereotype of mages not wearing armor."

Are you kidding? Could you please show me one illustration of a magician wearing armor and carrying a sword that was viewed by more the 10 Americans in the 70s. As far as I know Gandalf carried a magical sword that was incredibly powerful (his minus to hit would be made up for and then some by its plus to hit in AD&D 1E terms). So its permissible by the rules anyway. You guys are not thinking in terms of the general market and classic Grimms, Disney etc. The mass market didn't read obscure books, at most they read the Hobbit, and LOTR.

Anyway, to summarize, I'm not saying 3E doesn't have archetypes (clearly it does), all I'm saying is that they were changed drasticaly melded to some degree. Like Red Blue and Yellow paint mixing into a new color. This mixing just got old to me after a while. When I went back to 1E (after 2 years of 3E) I began to appreciate the things I thought I hated about 1E and understood for the first time the value of level limits for demi-humans, the weapons restrictions for classes etc.

tx7321 said:

Are you kidding? Could you please show me one illustration of a magician wearing armor and carrying a sword that was viewed by more the 10 Americans in the 70s. As far as I know Gandalf carried a magical sword that was incredibly powerful (his minus to hit would be made up for and then some by its plus to hit in AD&D 1E terms). So its permissible by the rules anyway. You guys are not thinking in terms of the general market and classic Grimms, Disney etc. The mass market didn't read obscure books, at most they read the Hobbit, and LOTR.

Click to expand...

It's not that magicians can't wear armor, but honestly what's stopping them from doing so? (Unless they're fey and fear iron.) My previous post elaborated on why we don't see a lot of wizards-in-armor (mainly because they advise or order people around rather than go adventuring... Gandalf adventures so he has a sword). Did I mention most wizards were "old", hence lacking the strength to carry something like a full plate?

Oh, and how about Doctor Fate?

tx7321 said:

Anyway, to summarize, I'm not saying 3E doesn't have archetypes (clearly it does), all I'm saying is that they were changed drasticaly melded to some degree. Like Red Blue and Yellow paint mixing into a new color. This mixing just got old to me after a while. When I went back to 1E (after 2 years of 3E) I began to appreciate the things I thought I hated about 1E and understood for the first time the value of level limits for demi-humans, the weapons restrictions for classes etc.

Click to expand...

I appreciate those factors (i.e. level limits, weapon restrictions) too but those are actually game design decisions, not a decision based on archetypes. I just want to clarify your argument: it's a ease of use/gameplay issue, not one that results from "archetypes".

Now that we've spent many posts quibbling the word "archetype", can I just restate what I think is the central point?

1e characters are constrained. They're forced into a particular model or career path which, in most cases, is based on clear literary antecedents, and for which some of us have been incorrectly using the word "archetype" as shorthand. These constraints have the feature of streamlining/speeding up play, but they do so at the expense of flexibility in character generation.

1e characters are constrained. They're forced into a particular model or career path which, in most cases, is based on clear literary antecedents, and for which some of us have been incorrectly using the word "archetype" as shorthand. These constraints have the feature of streamlining/speeding up play, but they do so at the expense of flexibility in character generation.

Click to expand...

See, it's the "clear literary antecedants" part that I have a problem with. Vance is a bloody obscure source. TX7231 is trying to claim that no one in the 70's would have read Mary Stewart. Never mind that she was a New York Times best selling author and that her Arthur works have made it onto more than one university lit syllabus. Just because he hasn't heard of her, he's assuming that no one has.

Vance on the other hand, was damn near out of print by the 70's. Certainly by the 80's the only place you could find a Vance book would be a used book store. We're talking about an author that was fairly obscure in a genre that was bloody miniscule at the time.

And as far as wizards in armor using weapons, how about Thulsa Doom?

Yey, that's one less argument to quibble about.

Doctor Fate

Hussar said:

See, it's the "clear literary antecedants" part that I have a problem with. Vance is a bloody obscure source.

Click to expand...

Whether or not Vance is obscure -- and I don't think he is, but it's beside the point -- Vance's work is clearly the literary antecedent of certain 1e classes.

Q: "See, it's the "clear literary antecedants" part that I have a problem with. Vance is a bloody obscure source. TX7231 is trying to claim that no one in the 70's would have read Mary Stewart. Never mind that she was a New York Times best selling author and that her Arthur works have made it onto more than one university lit syllabus. Just because he hasn't heard of her, he's assuming that no one has."


You seem to keep missing the point. AD&D was based on creating a recognizable fantasy world (heavily based in the "typical fairy tale", "knights in shining armor", setting....why? Ask EGG. I suspect because they liked that setting, it was easily understandable by anyone who grew up reading fairy tales and popular fantasy like "The Hobbit". So why the heavy constraints (weapons and armor limits etc.)? My guess, to protect the image of that particular setting. And to give players roles that required them to work together to reach particular goals (some sit back and cast spells, others fight hand to hand, while others scout ahead and get past locks and traps). For what ever reason, Gygax and Arneson wanted a world where magicians ran around in robes with staves, fighters carried big swords and wore the heaviest armor possible, thieves were sneaky SOBs in light leather and were lightly armed, and clerics in armor but not so heavily into hand to hand combat. AD&D was a game heavily rooted in mental imagery.

3E lost that setting somewhat. Partly its evident in the new artwork, but also its in the rules, as the old roles no longer exist as clearly as the once did. As if suddenly you went to your lawyer and he not only gave legal advice, but set a sprain.

To continue discussing this topic I think we'll need to come to some vocabulary agreement, otherwise we won't really know what the other is saying. So, for the sake of arguement can we agree on these definitions:

Archetype- a typical example of something we collectively recognize (and in terms of the game, the roles are protected by constraints). In AD&D 1E they are the classes.
*I think we can leave out the jungian and anthropological elements for now. It was an aside really.

Type- a person who seems to represent a particular group of people, having all the qualities that you usually connect with that group (a magician has his staff, robe and hat is a type etc.):


Stereotype-a simplified and standardized conception or image. A fixed idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong:
racial/sexual stereotypes.

So, by the above definitions (taken from websters) an archetype is a set role (the prototype). a type is a person in that set role that looks like it, and a stereotype is the fixed ideas about how we think a person is like (right or wrong).

Can we agree on these?

Personality is brought in by the player and can run the full gambet. It can be the players personality teleported into the game, or it could be someone acting and getting into some other personality to "get into character".

Hussar, the Conan world had some strange magicians in general. I don't consider that world the basis of the one in 1E (though you could say it was an influence, as is greek mythology etc.). Anyhow, great pic!

PapersAndPaychecks said:

Now that we've spent many posts quibbling the word "archetype", can I just restate what I think is the central point?

1e characters are constrained. They're forced into a particular model or career path which, in most cases, is based on clear literary antecedents, and for which some of us have been incorrectly using the word "archetype" as shorthand. These constraints have the feature of streamlining/speeding up play, but they do so at the expense of flexibility in character generation.

Click to expand...

I contend that the constraints were less about speeding up play & more about creating a team. Since it is a coöperative, ensemble-cast game, the hero needs to be broken up into multiple heroes, each of which is a facet of the one. The PCs fit together; one's strength making up for another's weakness.

OK, "needs to be" may not be quite right. Let's say: This was a design decision intended to enhance the coöperative nature of the game.

Although, I do agree that simplifying the game & speeding up play was a consideration as well.