Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="charlesatan" data-source="post: 3226015" data-attributes="member: 20870">And I think the point we're making is that D&D isn't exactly the most typical of settings, or at least its elements. Race-wise, he borrowed a lot from Tolkien. As far as "typical fantasy" goes, arguably, I'll let it pass. Mages not wearing armor, less so than Tolkien being typical fantasy. I can make points for either side (both wearing and not wearing armor), but in the end, Gygax made a choice. It happened to be they didn't wear armor. Whether that's relevant to your archetype concept is another matter (I don't see a "can't wear armor clause" in the elder).Actually, your five archetypes don't fit. Nearly everyone in the party fits the father. You'll probably claim that the thief plays the child, but honestly I see that more of a role of the player rather than the character, much less the class. If you want the elder, they're called NPCs as their lack of a pro-active role in the scheme of things but are integral to the story nonetheless. There's also the fact that you had to combine the shaman and the elder. If they're really archetypes, why combine? And using your logic, I could easily claim that a basketball team fits the archetypal mold: the coach is the elder, the players are the fathers/child, and the trainers are the shamans.</blockquote>