Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 3231594" data-attributes="member: 42582">Just wanted to add a voice of support to Storm Raven and Hussar, in respect of the debate about literary archetypes and AD&D character classes: the latter do not correspond to the former. Fighters are under tremendous mechanical pressure to wear the heaviest armour available; this is only reinforced by the fact that only chain and plate come in superior magic versions. But because horses suck in dungeons, and against fireballs, they are also under pressure to be foot-soldiers rather than mounted. So they correspond neither to (mounted) knights, nor to (swashbuckling) pirates and musketeers, nor to (unarmoured) Greek heros, nor to (equally versatile and effective in or out of armour) Conan. They do a reasonable job at being vikings, perhaps.Magic-users cannot wield swords (unlike Gandalf, who is clearly a very skilled swordfighter, or Elrond, who was the herald of Gil-Galad!), nor draw powers from dark forces (which is the role of evil clerics - this continues into 3E, where evil clerics are much better at the role than Necromancy specialists), nor give useful advice (clerics have Augury and Divination). There is also an artificial distinction created between magic-users and druids, which makes literary-legendary characters who are magic-using herablistic shamanistic types, for example from the Mabinogian or the Kalevala, hard to build (in DDG they typically have both classes). Also, AD&D magic-users are typically not all that old, if one uses the age tables in the DMG - certainly not greybeards.Clerics bear no relationship to Biblical prophets, historical clergy or even the fighting orders of the Crusades (to whom the comparison is expressly drawn in the PHB). The latter were, of course, not clergy at all but lay-people who nevertheless had taken vows in a recognised order; and they frequently fought with swords.I don't know Vance very well, and will take the word of others that Cugel is the inspiration for thieves. All I'll say is that I know of no fairy-tale where the protagonist is an expert mechanic (open locks, F/R traps) - the gadgeteer is a spy or detective story archetype, not a fanstasy one. There are tricky or stealthy characters in fantasy, but the tricky ones are perhaps most often also spell users, and the stealthy ones are typically also warriors. The 1st ed thief is bad at both magic and fighting.The upshot is thus that I agree with MerricB - 3E is probably better able to support archetypes, because the flexibility of character design. What I don't like about 3E is that it has a tendency to build some of this flexibility into PrC with mandated flavour that undermine the archetype (eg the Order of the Bow initiate - I'd rather just have an Archer PrC). Thus, for flexible character design I prefer RM (or perhaps HARP). And I do find that flexible character builds do not lead to identikit characters - different players have different roles they want to explore, and are able to follow their inclinations.On the whole Jung/Joseph Campbell archetype front: I'm pretty sceptical in general, and certainly don't see any instantiation of these archetypes in AD&D. Magic-users are not teachers, they blow things up! Thief are not children, they sneak around and backstab things! Clerics are not elders, they're combat medics! As I think Hussar (and probably others) said, these are tactical/wargaming roles, characterised by function, not symbology.</blockquote>

Verification