Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Storm Raven]

I think The Once and Future King is hardly the definitive description of Merlin. He's a character many centuries old. I think Le Morte D'Arthur is a much better source for material about the character.

He asked for popular representations of wizards wearing armor prior to 1970. You cannot get much more popular than The Once and Future King. I didn't say that it was the only representation of Merlin. I said it was a popular one at the time that showed someone clearly identifiable as a wizard who was wearing armor.

The Book of Three does have an iconic mage character, who is Dallben. He has a spellbook, carries a staff and doesn't wear armour.

Gwydion has formidable magical powers, but he's primarily a warrior.

And so we have a representation of a wizard, who wears armor and wields weapons. From before 1970. Sure, Dallben doesn't do either, but he never leaves Caer Dallben until the final pages of Book 5 either, and that's after the fighting is over. Nothing says that you cannot have wizards who wear amor and wizards who do not in fantasy literature. The question is: is one more "correct" than the other. Given much of the fantasy

A Wizard of Earthsea is stuffed full of mage characters. Virtually without exception, they wear no armour and carry staffs.

Most of them aren't out fighting in wars either. But, for example, the transplanted Khargad at Roke is shown wearing armor. The lord of the Isle of O is clearly a practitioner (although not a Roke-mage) and wears armor.

Erreth-Akbe isn't actually encountered in any of the books; he's an ancient mage-hero featured in a couple of songs and legends who was also the original owner of the Ring of Erreth-Akbe which forms the focus of the second book in the series.

Actually, he is encountered. In The Farthest Shore the grey mage conjures up his shade, who is clearly wearing armor. He is also described as having worn armor by the priestesses of Atuan.

Also, while I accept that E-A may be described as wearing armour, I know those books pretty well, and I'm struggling to think where. The reference must be a relatively obscure one, and it certainly runs contrary to the prevailing description of mages from the books.

It runs contrary to the depiction of mages who aren't out at war in the books. Most of the mages who go out and fight (I rememberd another one, the mage who defeated the dragon of the Enlades is described as an armored warrior) choose to wear armor. The thing about the books is that so few mages actually go out and fight, so the references are relatively rare (since the book mostly features mages at school, or living in small towns, or exploring uninhabited caves), but when they do, it is clear that there is no prohibition against doing so.

For another reference: the wizards in the Melnibone books (including Elric, who is clearly a wizardly individual) wear armor, carry swords, and so on.

 

[tx7321]

AD&D 1Es primary demographic was a more general public and thus had to have a wide appeal. The books you mentioned weren't read by anyone I knew back then. Maybe in your neck of the woods.

And wouldn't fit into the stereotypical fairy tale world? Are you kidding? The Once and Future King is King Arthur.

Hey, like I said, I didn't read those books. I was responding to your claim they showed wizards running around in armor using weapons...if it occured briefly then sure.

 

[Storm Raven]

AD&D 1Es primary demographic was a more general public and thus had to have a wide appeal. The books you mentioned weren't read by anyone I knew back then. Maybe in your neck of the woods.

You mean like people who had read best selling books that were adapted into Disney movies? Books like, say The Once and Future King, or The Black Cauldron?

Hey, like I said, I didn't read those books. I was responding to your claim they showed wizards running around in armor using weapons . . . if it occured briefly then sure.

Stereotypical fantasy is not "things tx7321 has read". I would say that it covers things like "best selling books in the genre".

Oh, by the way, all of the books I have mentioned were in the bibliography to the 1e DMG.

 

[tx7321]

Yeah, like I said, these books don't define the average persons impression of generic fantasy setting. But yeah, Black Cauldron was very popular and would have an impact.

But if you asked someone who didn't play any FRPGs (yeah a non-geek) what a wizard looks like (an older guy in robes) they'd pretty much describe the same thing. And thats what I'm talking about.

One of the great powers of 1E was its universal base in generic fantasy. Sure there was alot AD&D had to create (like whats a shambling mound, even whats an orc like). But the classes themselves were all familiar before you played.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yeah, like I said, these books don't define the average persons impression of generic fantasy setting. But yeah, Black Cauldron was very popular and would have an impact.

And the Black Cauldron was a sequel to The Book of Three. The movie was essentially the two books crammed together and modified somewhat. The books I am bringing up illustrate exactly what the average person's impression of a generic fantasy setting would be, since most of them have had extensive readership outside of the community of "fantasy fiction fans". Vance, Lieber, and so on, they would define what a fantasy fiction fan might expect (and they don't match the assumptions you think stereotypical fantasy displays), but things written by T.H. White and Lloyd Alexander? Those are the sorts of authors your "typical" person knows about.

But if you asked someone who didn't play any FRPGs (yeah a non-geek) what a wizard looks like they'd pretty much describe the same thing. And thats what I'm talking about.

Say, something like Merlin, from the very popular The Once and Future King? But he wears armor. So your theory falls apart again.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Yeah, like I said, these books don't define the average persons impression of generic fantasy setting. But yeah, Black Cauldron was very popular and would have an impact.

But if you asked someone who didn't play any FRPGs (yeah a non-geek) what a wizard looks like they'd pretty much describe the same thing. And thats what I'm talking about.

Despite the fact that the sources you've cited (of which only Vance really supports your position) were, with the sole exception of Tolkien, less popular than the sources cited against you? Lieber's works are now considered fantasy classics, but in the '70s they were not widely known. Vance was all but out of print and entirely out of mind, and what (well deserved) revival his works have had since can be attributed almost entirely to interest in D&D.

By contrast, The Once and Future King was the most prominent King Arthur story at a time when interest in King Arthur was very high. The Prydain Chronicles were award-winning, made-into-a-Disney-movie children's fantasy, behind only the Chronicles of Narnia and the Hobbit in prominence. Elric was the definitive Sword & Sorcery series of the time - indeed, it was almost unchallenged as such unless you count the occasional Conan pastiche or John Norman's now-oft-reviled Sword & Planet revival/anti-feminist myth cycle, Gor, in which the only 'wizards' were alien bugs... ARMORED alien bugs, IIRC!

 

[tx7321]

So, assuming these books were very popular with the target audiance of 1E, and assuming there were wizards running around in armor all over the place with swords...that still doesn't mean Gygax had any obligation to go with that universe. He went with the Tolkein world setting (I know he denies that but oh well) which also corresponds closely with the typical fairy tale (knights in shiney armor, wizards in robes with staves and hats...hell look at TSRs logo. I don't see that magician in plate!)

 

[Storm Raven]

So, assuming these books were very popular with the target audiance of 1E, and assuming there were wizards running around in armor all over the place with swords...that still doesn't mean Gygax had any obligation to go with that universe. He went with the Tolkein world setting (I know he denies that but oh well) which also corresponds closely with the typical fairy tale (knights in shiney armor, wizards in robes with staves and hats...hell look at TSRs logo. I don't see that magician in plate!)

No, Gygax and Arneson didn't have any obligation to do any of the things they did when putting together what became D&D. What they did so was create game constructs that would work for the wargame based simulation they were making to add on to a standard tabletop man-to-man wargame.

The original classes were fighting men, magic-users, and clerics. Or, infantry, artillery, and medics. The thief class, the ranger class, the paladin class, and so on, were add-ons. I suspect that the conversations creating those classes went like this:

Ernie: "Hey Dad, I just read that Cugel the Clever book you lent me. I want to play a character in your dungeon wargame like Cugel."

Gary: "Write it up."

Ernie: "Cool."

And so on. The classes were probably created using an ad hoc "what did the guy who wanted to play the character read last week" basis. Not on any "tap into the universal images of fantasy fairy tales" basis.

And if he was going for a Tolkien based game, he did a bad job of it. Wizard bear no relation to Gandalf. Fighters don't seem to be like any member of the Fellowship - they all get along fine with little or no armor through 50% of the Trilogy.

I think he was going for a Vance/Lieber/Howard inspired game. The conventions of the game fit those adventures much better. Not perfectly, and certainly not enough to really say that you could play most of the characters in those games. But the tone and feel, yeah, that's the source for that.

 

[MerricB]

And classes like the Illusionist, Bard and Ranger were not created by Gary, instead seeing first publication in The Strategic Review or The Dragon, and then later adapted into AD&D.

Cheers!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

What it comes down to is this: the first incarnation of D&D was not a high-concept game of mythic storytelling tapping into deep-seated archetypes and based on the definitive and instantly recognizable imagery of fantasy. Nor was it the intricately engineered, designed and developed work of an experienced professional RPG designer, equipped with years of playtest and market research data.

It was a fairly down and dirty set of supernatural dungeon-crawling rules grafted to a skirmish-scale miniatures wargame. In its early years, it grew, not by conscious development to cover previously untapped mythic territory - or to capture hitherto untapped markets - but by fits and starts as various people in its initial playgroups came up with ideas they thought were cool.

The potential of those rules captured the imaginations of so many people, they created the RPG industry and *defined* the definitive and instantly recognizable imagery of fantasy. In retrospect, D&D classes look iconic, but at the time? Not so much.

I'd also make the case that the D&D classes are *no longer* as iconic as they were in, say, the '80s and '90s. The fantasy genre has moved on somewhat from that extremely D&D-influenced period and is by turns going back to older tropes and incorporating new ones.