Archetypes, are they useful anymore?

[Storm Raven]

The 5 basic archetypes are broad, not just specific jobs, careers or roles, but they all fit into that general basket due to their boundaries. These are universal templates as old as man. They also are studied in psychology, anthropology, history, and many other fields and don't just occur in literature. Carl Jung did allot of interesting studies into archetypes.

Archetypes come from the roles that we (all humans) instinctively recognize (mother, father, child, teacher, healer). You can go to the deepest back-jungle H/G nomadic tribe, to the modern city and see the same basic archetypes.

Archetype shouldn't be confused with personality. Some personalities are better suited for different archetypes (or roles) but each category has examples of all the personalities in it.
AD&D uses the alignment system to give a basic template to follow (you have CE Magicians, just as you have LG...some would argue the lawful is probably better suited for being a magician. In "real life" there are many personality category systems.
The most popular in the West is probably Myers-Briggs. Many of you have undoubtedly taken this test for school or work. If you haven't take this test: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes3.asp and there are more detailed write ups here. http://www.personalitypage.com/home.html.

This is all true. And yet it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. You see, most people, when talking about games, use the term archetype with the following definitions:

American Heritage Dictionary -

Archetype (är'kĭ-tīp')
n.
1. An original model or type after which other similar things are patterned; a prototype: "'Frankenstein' . . . 'Dracula' . . . 'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' . . . the archetypes that have influenced all subsequent horror stories" (New York Times).
2. An ideal example of a type; quintessence: an archetype of the successful entrepreneur.
3. In Jungian psychology, an inherited pattern of thought or symbolic imagery derived from the past collective experience and present in the individual unconscious.

I suppose you are trying to link the current discussion to the third definition, But that doesn't work when applied to AD&D character classes. First off, because the AD&D character classes don't actually model anything close to any of the Jungian categories. Secondly (and this is why my first point is true), because the AD&D classes have nothing in them relating in any way whatsoever to personality types.

The only[/i] definitions of archetype that fit this conversation are 1, and probably 2. 3, quite simply, is inapplicable to the AD&D rules. The AD&D fighter class (for example) doesn't describe anything that would resemble INTP, ESFJ, or anything like the Myers-Briggs personality types. It describes capabilities, not personality.

So, what "archetype" must mean in any conversation concerning AD&D classes is "the original model" or the "ideal representative of a type". As in the answer to the question "who is the quintissential example of a warrior in myth, legend, and literature"? Or "who is the original example of a wizard upon whom others are modeled"?

In AD&D I think the focus was to get on an adventure and do stuff asap. It was a less introspective game, and more interested in adventure. Therefore, quick and easy identification of your role is very useful in this "action oriented" game.

True, and yet this is an entirely different argument from "AD&D uses archetypes as a basis for the character classes". Ease of character creation and use of archetypes is not the same thing, nor are they even necessarily congruent with one another. One could easily create a character creation system for a game that used archetypes (Rolemaster, for example), and yet was complicated and time-consuming. It is also quite possible to create a character creation system that does not use archetypes, and yet is quite simple and quick (BESM, probably).

Perhaps 3E has broken down the barriers between the classes, to reflect a more intellectual or inward looking game. Its less about the "group" and more about the individuals within it. Thats probably why customization is the focus. And probably why they changed the rules to put the rules into the hands of the players (now responsible for their highly customized characters). So perhaps in some since the role of archetype has been changed in 3E from one of "tool to get into action" where the player keeps his personality and shoves it into a PC (as you see in AD&D 1E), to one of "tool to define yourself" where the player builds and streamlines his character and then attempts to become it. I think this may come directly from 2E which was strongly into character development...but taken one step further by removing the barriers to self expression (ie. a fighter being able to take elements of being a thief, or a MU being able to take elements of being a fighter).

An interesting observation, if only it were true. AD&D has this sort of mixing - the entire multiclassing system was replete with examples of "fighter mixing with thief" and "magic user being able to take elements of fighter".

But the real problem with the AD&D system was that, when compared to the antecedents (the "archetypes" of fantasy as it were), comes up short. In order to emulate almost any of these types of characters, one had to cross the classes in ways not allowed under the rules as written. Take, for example, King Arthur. In the 1e DDG, he is classed as a 14th level paladin/5th level bard, a combination not permitted by about five different rules. Merlin, in many ways the quintissential wizard, is listed as a 14th level druid/15th level magic-user/10th level illusionist. If your "wizard" archetype cannot cover Merlin, you are not dealing in archetypes.

Maybe 1e wasn't dealing with legendary archetypes, drawing pulp fiction for its inspiration. Let's look at th newhon entries. Fafrhd is the quintissential barbarian warrior, he should fit an AD&D class, wait, no. He's a 15th level ranger/13th level thief/5th level bard. Well, then, the Grey Mouser must fit the thief class. Oh darn, he doesn't. He's an 11th level fighter/3rd level magic-user/15th level thief.

Gandalf? No, he uses a sword. Gwydion? No, he's a warrior whow is also a powerful druid. Math? No, he's a wizard, but he's also a great warrior (listed in the 1e DDG as a 6th level druid/4th level fighter/30th level magic-user/10th level illusionist). D'Artagnian? Nope, he doesn't fit any class.

The classes, as written don't fit any antecedent, at all. That they were designed to improve the "get the new character rolled up and in the dungeon" speed seems to me pretty clear. The argument that they were intended to evoke archetypes seems obvious to me as a retcon, and not a very convincing one at that.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The classes, as written don't fit any antecedent, at all.

You're looking at literary characters and trying to translate them into 1e. Try turning that round, and looking at how 1e translates particular literary characters into classes.

The 1e thief is quite clearly Jack Vance's Cugel, right down to the ability to read scroll spells and get them wrong. The 1e mage is quite clearly Vancian as well, based on Rhialto the Marvellous. The ranger comes directly from Tolkein (right down to the ability to use crystal balls/palantiri), the monk evokes martial arts films (which Gygax & co. clearly enjoyed, cf. Rakshasa for an example), and the paladin (like the concept of alignment and the regenerating troll) comes directly from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.

Actually, the only class for which I can't think of the precise antecedent is the cleric.

 

[shilsen]

Actually, the only class for which I can't think of the precise antecedent is the cleric.

Archbishop Turpin, of Le Chanson de Roland?

 

[RFisher]

Actually, the only class for which I can't think of the precise antecedent is the cleric.

The 1e PHB says that the Cleric is based on the Templars & similar holy orders of knighthood.

 

[Storm Raven]

You're looking at literary characters and trying to translate them into 1e. Try turning that round, and looking at how 1e translates particular literary characters into classes.

And it doesn't fit those very well.

The 1e thief is quite clearly Jack Vance's Cugel, right down to the ability to read scroll spells and get them wrong. The 1e mage is quite clearly Vancian as well, based on Rhialto the Marvellous. The ranger comes directly from Tolkein (right down to the ability to use crystal balls/palantiri), the monk evokes martial arts films (which Gygax & co. clearly enjoyed, cf. Rakshasa for an example), and the paladin (like the concept of alignment and the regenerating troll) comes directly from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions.

These are likely very big influences on the classes, and that they are exactly proves my point. The classes are not built on archetypes. They are built on specific, in some cases, quite obscure, characters from novels. Sure, I've read Three hearts and Three Lions, so I know Holger/Ogier is the inspiration for the class. But that character is not a literary or mythological archetype. They are, in large part, specific translations of relatively unknown individual characters.

When people are asked to name a fantasy wizard, how many name Rhialto the Marvelous as opposed to Merlin, or Gandalf? Or a number of other characters? (By the way, who do you think the precise antecedent of the druid and bard classes are?). Rhialto, though a fun character, is not an archetype under any definition. The same goes for Cudgel, and Holger/Ogier, and so on. The only character who really fits the "archetype" designation is Aragorn. And these facts pretty much blow the "AD&D classes are based on archetypes" argument out of the water.

 

[tx7321]

Raven, first off, archetypes in AD&D do correspond to general archetypes outside of AD&D.

From Wik: "From Wikipedia,
An archetype is a generic, idealized model of a person, object or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned or emulated. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality or behavior. This article is about personality archetypes, as described in literature analysis and the study of the psyche."

For instance, the magic user is clearly representing the teacher type in my 5 way break down. And, there are plenty of other archetype systems AD&D classes could be applied to; the point is, each type is identifiable and quickly playable by anyone off the street by our cultural understanding of each (garnished from childrens books, stories, movies etc). For instance, I could take my aunt, who has never played (or possibly heard of) AD&D before, and in 30 minutes have her playing a magic user as well as any of us. WHy, because she subconsciously knowws what a magician is, what it does, and thinks, and what kinds of things it would never do (like wear armor, or attack with a large sword). How, does she know this without reading the PH you ask? Simple, she knows the archetypes because she learned them at a very early age through socialization in our culture. Now perhaps her image isn't perfectly fitted to 1Es notion of a magic user, but very close (as Gygax didn't tread far from the archetype norm...and protects that norm with rules like no swords etc.). Same would apply to any of the other classes. And don't forget, she can relate to these archetypes because at one time or another she has been in that role. In 3E this is not so. She would be lost when she looked around and saw her fellow adventurering wizards dressed in armor carrying light crossbows, and possibly swords. She'd be equally surprised by spell using fighter types (who do so at lower levels in 3E). Thats what I'm talking about. 3E has stripped away our cultural referrences (we learned as very young children). This doesn't effect how the character sees himself so much as how he sees his fellow players. So even if you play a straight up wizard in a pointy hat and no armor or swords, you still have to deal with all the other dungeon punk looking wizard/druid/paladin/monks in your group.

Raven...do you see what I'm getting at yet?

As for multi-classing, thats only for non-humans, and AD&D is a human centric game. Also these are other races, and the demihuman races fit other archetypes all together (for instance: an elf fighter likely represents part child-eternally young, shirking responsibility..and part father-protector, provider attacker). I mean we all new what an elf was (to some degree) before we played any role playing game. Playing a demihuman is also a bit alien, as if your playing a monster. So giving it 3 classes just makes it stranger adding to its strangeness.

 

[howandwhy99]

What do you guys think of old D&D archetypes as wargame designs? Classes are Unit Rank and Type. Races are Monster Types. Spells are artillery with limited ammunitions. Weapon and armor determine light or heavy soldiers. Hit Points are members in a Unit or the members' ability to take punishment.

I've been reading up on this idea and I think most of the core D&D elements, read: all core D&D elements, are crossovers from wargaming.

For archetypes today I think they are almost impossible in D20, but far more likely in Grim Tales or something equally D20 Modern-like. Having the background define the character's abilities instead of requiring designer-crafted classes seems far more flexible to me.

 

[Storm Raven]

Raven, first off, archetypes in AD&D do correspond to general archetypes outside of AD&D.

From Wik: "From Wikipedia,
An archetype is a generic, idealized model of a person, object or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned or emulated. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality or behavior. This article is about personality archetypes, as described in literature analysis and the study of the psyche."

Except you seem to obsess over the second part, and gloss over the first. You seem to think there is some sort of "psychological element" to the classes in AD&D, which is patently false. In point of fact, AD&D was devoid of "personality mechanics" as part of the character creation process from a rules standpoint. That's why so many people say "you can take two AD&D characters with identical stats and play them as radically different characters".

For instance, the magic user is clearly representing the teacher type in my 5 way break down.

Or, as the class is written, it doesn't. You see, an example of a magic-user in the 1e AD&D system might be a teacher, but there is nothing in the class mechanics that drives it to that. The 1e AD&D magic-user could, just as easily, be the misanthropic hermit.

And, there are plenty of other archetype systems AD&D classes could be applied to; the point is, each type is identifiable and quickly playable by anyone off the street by our cultural understanding of each (garnished from childrens books, stories, movies etc). For instance, I could take my aunt, who has never played (or possibly heard of) AD&D before, and in 30 minutes have her playing a magic user as well as any of us. WHy, because she subconsciously knowws what a magician is, what it does, and thinks, and what kinds of things it would never do (like wear armor, or attack with a large sword).

You see, this sort of analysis tells me that you have absorbed too much AD&D to know what you are talking about when you talk about archetypes. Before AD&D, wizards often attacked with large swords, and wore armor. Gandalf carried a large sword. Numberous tales have Merlin wearing armor. It is an almost unique feature of AD&D (and D&D) that wizardly types eschew mundane protection and weaponry. Gwydion was a powerful wizard, and yet he wore aremor and used big swords.

And if she comes into it cold, knowing "subconsiously" what a magician does, thinks, and what kinds of things it would never do", she's going to come into it with an entirely different set of assumptions than the AD&D magic-user/wizard class offers.

How, does she know this without reading the PH you ask? Simple, she knows the archetypes because she learned them at a very early age through socialization in our culture. Now perhaps her image isn't perfectly fitted to 1Es notion of a magic user, but very close (as Gygax didn't tread far from the archetype norm...and protects that norm with rules like no swords etc.).

Or, one could recognize that the 1e AD&D magic-user bears almost no resemblance to any but one, highly idiosyncratic, representation of a wizard. And none to just about every traditional representation of a wizard.

Same would apply to any of the other classes. And don't forget, she can relate to these archetypes because at one time or another she has been in that role.

Or, she would wonder why the wizards didn't wear armor, which literary and mythological wizards do all the time. Or carry sword, like Gandalf. or why woodsmen lways seemed to be able to cast spells - unlike someone like Robin Hood. And so on.

In 3E this is not so. She would be lost when she looked around and saw her fellow adventurering wizards dressed in armor carrying light crossbows, and possibly swords. She'd be equally surprised by spell using fighter types (who do so at lower levels in 3E). Thats what I'm talking about. 3E has stripped away our cultural referrences (we learned as very young children). This doesn't effect how the character sees himself so much as how he sees his fellow players. So even if you play a straight up wizard in a pointy hat and no armor or swords, you still have to deal with all the other dungeon punk looking wizard/druid/paladin/monks in your group.

Or she might actually see characters that resemble the ones she is familiar with through myth, legend, and literature. As opposed to AD&D classes, which are representations of singular, very obscure, individual characters.

Raven...do you see what I'm getting at yet?

Yes, I see that you are framing your argument to come to the conclusion you want to arrive at. And not following the actual evidence at all, but rather coming up with pseudo-psychological arguments that bear no relation whatsoever to the actual AD&D character classes, or their literary and mythological antecedents.

As for multi-classing, thats only for non-humans, and AD&D is a human centric game. Also these are other races, and the demihuman races fit other archetypes all together (for instance: an elf fighter likely represents part child-eternally young, shirking responsibility..and part father-protector, provider attacker). I mean we all new what an elf was (to some degree) before we played any role playing game. Playing a demihuman is also a bit alien, as if your playing a monster. So giving it 3 classes just makes it stranger adding to its strangeness.

AD&D is only a human centric game in sofar as it tries to tell you so. Most AD&D parties I have played with were dominated by demi-humans, to the point where human characters were as rare has hen's teeth. And it entirely eliminates the 'archetype" argument to boot, no matter how "rare" they were supposed to be, since it dilutes the supposed roles even more. Of course, you can't address the dual classses either, which allowed switching between roles, or the bard, which was all the roles in one. Though the dual class mehcanic and the bard were badly executed.

And the main problem is that your argument is unsupported by evidence. You keep trying to argue that everyone "knows" that the archetypes work the way the AD&D classes say they do. But they don't, either using your Jungian psychology argument which simply doesn't hold up because of the lack of a psychological element to the character mechanics, or the literary archetype model, since the classes just don't fit a literary archetype. You are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and it just won't work.

Or, you could just accept that the AD&D classes represent nothing except the AD&D character classes. They are gaming elements, designed to work from a game mechanics standpoint. Nothing more.

 

[tx7321]

Raven: "In point of fact, AD&D was devoid of "personality mechanics" as part of the character creation process from a rules standpoint. " I never said personality was part of character creation. However there are behavioral constraints that prevent you from doing things you might want to do (like if your playing an MU and want to attack with a long sword wearing armor). AD&D characters are basically your personality transported into the DMs world, but your given skills (casting spells say) and limits (wearing armor). However, it would be foolish to think you (the payer) don't take into the game preconcieved notions of what each class is like (for instance: "I've seen most wizards as kind of book wormy types with reclusive personalities, so I'll do that a bit to get into character"...sure, that part is optional as you point out, but when we played "make believe" as kids we did this same kind of thing).

Yep, my aunt likely read the generic Grimms and watched Disney cartoon magicians (like that on Fantasia etc.)...that sort of thing (like the rest of us living in the USA) so it would be unusual for us to hear of Merlin running around in armor. Infact, this is the first I've heard of it. I suppose if my aunt read books and watched movies with magicians charging with lances in full plate she'd be disappointed by AD&Ds presentation.

The psychological element I focus on is more difficult to understand and more difficult to express...thats the only reason I'm bringing it up (for example, "why do authors use tried and true archetypes anyway?" "Because the reader knows the character instantly and what they represent *their strengths and weaknesses*) .

 

[Hussar]

You want Merlin wearing armor? Read Mary Stewart who, at the time 1e came about, was probably the most widely read author on King Arthur at the time.