Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7885858" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem with this argument is that it applies to EVERY literary example.&nbsp; You comment that rogues, for example, have a &quot;signature ability&quot;.&nbsp; I would assume that means sneak attack.&nbsp; Show me a literary example please of a rogue whose signature ability is stabbing people from behind or by surprise.&nbsp; After all, Bilbo certainly isn't a rogue by that standard.&nbsp; He's just a peasant.&nbsp; No D&amp;D class at all.&nbsp; See, this is why I say that the argument for archetype is pointless.&nbsp; You can make the identical argument about EVERY single example that gets brought up.&nbsp; Vimes isn't even a fighter?&nbsp; Seriously?&nbsp; Ah, crap, now I understand the confusion.&nbsp; I said Cutter and I meant Croaker.&nbsp; Sorry, my total bad.&nbsp; It's been a while since I read the books and I got the names mixed up.But, Croaker, Miles and Vimes all share similar roles - they are commanders, even if they aren't in command.&nbsp; They inspire those around them to do things they normally wouldn't do.&nbsp; Which is exactly what a Warlord should be doing.It's a pointless argument at the end of the day.&nbsp; D&amp;D classes do not represent literary archetypes.&nbsp; They don't.&nbsp; They are completely self-referential game artifacts that only exist within the bounds of the game itself.&nbsp; Trying to apply them outside of the game will never, ever line up 1:1.So, yes, this is a totally thin argument.&nbsp; Since none of the other classes have any literary archetypes that line up any better than a warlord does, then, well, you can't really argue against a warlord based on literary archetypes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 7885858, member: 22779"] The problem with this argument is that it applies to EVERY literary example. You comment that rogues, for example, have a "signature ability". I would assume that means sneak attack. Show me a literary example please of a rogue whose signature ability is stabbing people from behind or by surprise. After all, Bilbo certainly isn't a rogue by that standard. He's just a peasant. No D&D class at all. See, this is why I say that the argument for archetype is pointless. You can make the identical argument about EVERY single example that gets brought up. Vimes isn't even a fighter? Seriously? Ah, crap, now I understand the confusion. I said Cutter and I meant Croaker. Sorry, my total bad. It's been a while since I read the books and I got the names mixed up. But, Croaker, Miles and Vimes all share similar roles - they are commanders, even if they aren't in command. They inspire those around them to do things they normally wouldn't do. Which is exactly what a Warlord should be doing. It's a pointless argument at the end of the day. D&D classes do not represent literary archetypes. They don't. They are completely self-referential game artifacts that only exist within the bounds of the game itself. Trying to apply them outside of the game will never, ever line up 1:1. So, yes, this is a totally thin argument. Since none of the other classes have any literary archetypes that line up any better than a warlord does, then, well, you can't really argue against a warlord based on literary archetypes. [/QUOTE]

Verification