Rogue archetypal characters

[MerricB]

No disrespect meant to Gary, but if you've met Gord and Chert, you've met The Mouser and Fafhrd. He was a big fan of Fritz.

How about Skeeve and Aahz from the Myth series? While they were mages, Skeeve in particular was very much the crafty scoundrel (Intelligent Rogue) who through luck or sense of timing was able to come out on top of situations where his magic would not have worked. He really wasn't Charismatic (while his crew liked him, scant others did).

Hmm. I still think they're a lot more Charismatic in their approach to problems than "Intelligent". It's all about Bluffing their way through situations and using the abilities of their allies. Mind you, I don't think they really come under the "rogue" archetype... skills such as stealth, thievery, sneak attack, etc. really aren't part of their characters at all. Aahz is a fighter/wizard (with wizard temporarily disabled) and Skeeve is a wizard... they can just both use Deception skills.

Tanda, on the other hand, is a Charismatic Rogue.

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

James Bond fits the charismatic rogue role pretty well.

Actually - and this is an interesting point - he may fit Brawny Rogue better, although with charismatic skills. When Bond is in combat, it isn't about charisma at all, it's all about his physical strength and fitness.

I still need to think more about this... and it'll help once I see more of the rogue abilities.

Cheers!

 

[Lizard]

Some others:
Cugel The Clever -- almost all con man. And a classic example of someone not putting points into Sense Motive

Locke Lamora -- Master con artist. Very mediocre fighter, by his own admission.

Nifft The Lean -- Extremely agile, insanely lucky.

Jimmy The Hand -- the archetypal 'street kid made good', and a perfect example of a multiclassed rogue/fighter/noble.

Captain Jack Sparrow?

Robin Hood?

The Scarlet Pimpernel?

 

[hong]

Roguish personality does not imply rogue class, ppl. kthxb

 

[Henry]

Actually - and this is an interesting point - he may fit Brawny Rogue better, although with charismatic skills. When Bond is in combat, it isn't about charisma at all, it's all about his physical strength and fitness.

I still need to think more about this... and it'll help once I see more of the rogue abilities.

Cheers!

As many people as we're lumping under "Charismatic" though, we might need to refine it a bit. After all, don't most of the examples fall under both Intelligent AND Charismatic? They kind of go hand in hand.

...and often times, High INT, High CHA, seems to go with low WIS...

I really can't see Skeeve as "Charismatic", though, since the only way he ever got people to go his way was through either bluffing or outsmarting them; he couldn't convince anyone to save his life, especially his friends. And if ever there was a candidate for low WIS and no sense motive, it was Skeeve.

 

[hong]

Bilbo, from Peter Jackson's Hobbit. 100% ninja, and he's so badass he didn't even need to backstab anybody.

 

[Lizard]

Roguish personality does not imply rogue class, ppl. kthxb

So what does?

Are we reversing cause and effect?

"If he stabs people in the back, he's a rogue".

Obviously, fictional characters are rarely designed to fit D&D classes, though the reverse is sometimes true (Drizzt...). But if someone:
Relies on speed and agility over brute force
Lives by his wits
Can fight, but prefers not to (is often a big fan of "Let's you and him fight")
Is either outside the law or disrespectful of it (or is an agent 'of the law' who works outside the established structure)
Is motivated by mazimizing wealth gain while minimizing work
Considers property rights of others to be arbitrary suggestions at best

Then I'd call them a rogue, in D&D terms, depending on how many of these traits they possess.

The D&D rogue class ought to be able to model most high fantasy/sword&sorcery rogues, perhaps with some multiclassing or tweaking. The fewer of the archetypal characters it can model, the poorer the implementation of the class. (Forex, D&D used to be reasonably criticized for not being able to model Conan or the Grey Mouser, despite them being core archetypes of D&D. 3x fixed that, finally.)

 

[hong]

So what does?

Are we reversing cause and effect?

No, we are setting cause and effect to work in the proper direction. The class represents a particular niche, with a strong focus. Those who wish a more diluted focus, perhaps to obtain a more flexible/useful character in actual play, can multiclass to do so.

"If he stabs people in the back, he's a rogue".

Yes. Because a pure rogue is 100% ninja, at least in the 4E context. Few people are 100% ninjae.

Obviously, fictional characters are rarely designed to fit D&D classes, though the reverse is sometimes true (Drizzt...). But if someone:
Relies on speed and agility over brute force
Lives by his wits
Can fight, but prefers not to (is often a big fan of "Let's you and him fight")
Is either outside the law or disrespectful of it (or is an agent 'of the law' who works outside the established structure)
Is motivated by mazimizing wealth gain while minimizing work
Considers property rights of others to be arbitrary suggestions at best

Then I'd call them a rogue, in D&D terms, depending on how many of these traits they possess.

The closest representation in the D&D framework may involve levels of rogue. This representation may also, depending on the specifics, involve levels of fighter, ranger, wizard, warlock, and anything else that may be available.

Does this qualify them as being a "rogue"? That depends on the mindset of the person asking the question.

 

[mach1.9pants]

-Tasslehoff Burrfoot...?............<takes cover>

Robin Hood: brawny Rogue/ archer Ranger/ ?Warlord? mix IMO

 

[hong]

Robin Hood has been thrown up as an example of a rogue, ranger, archer, and even, IIRC, paladin. A lot depends on the specific facets of the man/myth/folktale that you seek to emphasise.