Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5106423" data-attributes="member: 18253">Archetypes are useful for sure. Unless a campaign recreates all the basic races, it is certainly using archetypes for the player races. But an archetype can shade into a stereotype and personally, I find that something like “orc” hit that territory long ago.Even your point about orc possibly being one of three types raises the point: you say “orc” and your players may already be thinking one of several different possibilities. As a ref of course you can then spend the time to disabuse them of their preconceptions but knowing these preconceptions exist, why not simply skirt the whole issue by giving them a new label? One needn’t change any of the mechanics but a new label and hopefully some distinctive personality for individuals and nation will make them far more memorable and not waste any time setting aside misconceptions.The same can be said for many player races but the referee can always decide to accept the likely preconceptions or create something new that builds on an old archetype. I did this in my current setting where elves are still elves but the dwarves have a new label. The label doesn’t fool anyone but it does help make it clear from the beginning that they are not your stereotypical dwarves.In the case of orcs, I think there are additional complications. You say “orc” and I’d wager half or more of your players are going think “boring”, this despite the fact that you may intend to build your campaign around them and have endowed them with all sorts of cool personality and setting details. Again, you can work past that but why handicap yourself from the start? Call them something else.</blockquote>

Verification