Archetypes in Fantasy RPGs

Old PnP versions of RPGs started it for me...the fascination with fantasy role playing and the classical characters that have evolved from the common mythos of the genre. J. R. R. Tolkien's rich world of Hobbits, Trolls, Orcs, Evles and the like fueled the imagery we commonly use to define the fantasy characters we depict in movies and games.

Recently, I've noticed a strange convergence of Western fantasy styles and those of our Asian friends in games like Perfect World. The upcoming Aion and Warrior Epic seem to be a blend of Western and Eastern fantasy as well. Strange how certain things are becoming a larger part of the gaming community's vision of "High Fantasy" and are even leaking through to other media.

I was looking through my weekly Renderosity newsletter and came across this little tidbit:

http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bc...wProduct=62056

This got me to wondering...is this original, yet parallel evolution of an idea? Or is it an emergent archetype? Or could it be that this idea we call "ritualist" is something spread across multiple stories and games and yet, somehow never really became commonly visualized until recently? Like Dwarves and Elves and Rogues, could it be this is becoming a new common image?

Looking at Guild Wars and other "High Fantasy" games/movies/books...have you seen any parallels that seem unconnected, but strikingly familiar? Just curious.

I hate to burst your philosophical bubble, but that renderosity model is simply a direct copy of the GW character.

No mystical paradigms involved.

Don't let me kill the rest of the conversation, though.

Fantasy archtypes:
Fighter
Expert
Mage

Every fantasy class falls into these categories. The ritualist is simply a mage focusing on a form of conjuration, nothing more.

So...you get it then. My original post was gonna be: Doodz...OMG!! tzotal rip-off of Rit!!!

Then I thought I'd hide the real message in English!

Seriously, was thinking it might be interesting to have a few thoughtful conversations now and again instead of the usual: Let's speculate about GW2...Pointless Poll or how did I get banned? I don't even play the game type threads....given the lack-luster number of viewings and the single response I can only assume either 1) I was wrong OR 2) I should have included another link http://www.thesaurus.com ....I'm such a fool.

Jests aside....Why only fighter, rougue mage? What about priest? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype so many more to choose from if we delve deeper...Have the three main become more stereotype?

...

The fact that you put a Rogue before a Healer/Priest (the correct answer for the Holy Trinity of RPGs, BTW) astounds me.

Healer/Priest is a subtype of Mage. Although Expert would probably be a better term than Rogue. Going to edit previous post as such.

There are four:
- Damage eaters. (Tanks)
- Damage dealers. (Nukers/Snipers)
- Supporters. (Healers/Protectors/Buffers/Enemy Debuffers)
- Service providers/Non-fighters (Trappers, Crafters, Merchants, etc...)

Sorry for the little off-topic bit here, but im having a hard time figuring out what that is exactly? Art? Or is it simply pictures, or textures for some game?

Its obviously an art community... just looks weird too me. :/

For clarification's sake, I suppose I can put it this way:

Is the image a coincidence or a copy?

Have you noticed new ideas in fantasy gaming (esp. character archetypes)?

Have you seen anything NOT Guild Wars that looks like it came from Guild Wars?

An archetype (pronounced: /ˈarkətaɪp/) is a generic, idealized model of a person, object, or concept from which similar instances are derived, copied, patterned....~wikipedia

An example of a modern archetype may be seen in Tolkien's Elves vs. the Elfs of Germanic folklore. For Tolkien, we see elves as human-like in size and appearance...In the past they were more akin to fairies.

Many people argue the three main fantasy archetypes are it for games, while others argue that the sub-types constitute a serprate model. For instance: casters = mage archetype vs. casters = several archetypes: elemental/dark/nature/holy and even break them down into further categories which include all distinct forms of magic user as an individual archetype if it is used frequently enough amidst multiple media. Clerics/Preists/Monks....all the same or different? That's an on-going debate.

Some categories are hybrids...shapeshifers, dark templars etc. Considered warriors by some, but the source of their power is magical in nature....caster then? Or rogue because they can't be considered either of the other two. All can be simplified down to their main core role...but in the fantasy genre outside electronic media, in no way is a cleric, for example, considered the same type of character as a mage (think D&D or other PnP games) thier purpose and play are much differrent.

I'm of the thought that our vision has been reduced to the stereotypes in some respects, but I see hope. Looking ahead at a few of the games coming out that include winged characters and aerial combat...maybe some roles may change.

Oh, yeah...it is an art community by the way...have a look around.

its always easier to take what other people have done and called it yours and sell it for money, rather then creating an original of your own, which later people will steal and called it theirs and make money out of it.

to answers your original question i have to understand the word Archtype first. It sound too CGJung and philosophical. lol

Things have been moving around in circles for a very very long time.

How many remeber the orriginal Final Fantasy?

Knight, Ninja, Martial Artist, White/Red/Black Wizards.

Blind wizards are nothing new, maybe that they are female is a modern update of the image but they have all been around since old folk tales 1000 years ago if you just look carefully enough.

I mean when somebody mentions Knight how many people think King Arthur or Sir Lancelot?
Wizard = Merlin.
Sorceres = Morgan Le Fay.
Archer = Robin Hood.

Thats just off the top of my head, look to the egiptian gods for animal headed gods and the greeks for shap shifters...everything is there if you know where to look.

I find myself always going back to the D&D "core" classes:

fighter
priest
wizard
rogue
ranger

They pretty much cover the bases, but you can undoubtedly expand upon them, if you wanted.

One thing that I wanted to point out, though, is that it all goes back to an even earlier concept of examining how people identify themselves. You often get people who describe themselves by their job, by their pastime, by their family role, etc. This is especially visible w/ doctors who want to be referred to as such, even when out of their office; "Hello Mr. Smith. That's 'Dr. Smith'. Oh, sorry, Dr. Smith..."

I think, in general, archetypes/classes/professions are very easy and accepted way to express what a character will do and what to expect from them. Unfortunately, most games don't allow for characters to go against the grain of these preconceptions; you can't be a "dark" monk, or a gleeful necromancer - your choice of face, hair, and armor all harken back to the basic premise of each profession.

games dont create archetypes, nature does and games copy, sometimes it takes a while for the games to realize what is what.

RPGs? Maybe for MMOs. But yeah the Fighter (Warrior), Rogue (Thief) and Mage (Wizard) are definantly the most fundamental.

Yep, I "get it".

My wife is a professional writer and an expert in faerie tales/folklore, and I'm a character designer for video games. This sort of conversation comes up around the dinnertable not infrequently. ^_^

"Warrior Tank", "Cleric", "Mage", and "Rogue", as people refer to them in this thread, aren't archetypes... They're game mechanics.

These "classes" are so young that they didn't exist before Dungeons & Dragons, which isn't based on Tolkien, like everyone assumes, but more on the works of (far more recent) people like Jack Vance. That's according to the creators.

Tolkien is always accused of being the father of modern fantasy, but if you try to apply "standard fantasy classes" to Tolkien's characters, you'll find it pretty difficult to do without a shoehorn.

Sure, there are plenty of archetypes in Tolkien, but they aren't "Warrior", and "Cleric". They're the Pure Princess that's every hero's reward, the Crownless True King, the Angel, the Fallen Angel, the Hunting Prince, the Usurping Regent, the Veteran Warrior, and, probably most importantly, the Common Man Who Turns Out to Be the Great Prince/Hero (Frodo, Luke Skywalker, even the hero in Bioshock, etc., etc.).

Robin Hood isn't an "Archer", he's a "Trickster Hero".

I think it's fantastic that Asian archetypes (not game mechanics, but archetypes) are finding their way into our stories. The world is far too rich for it to be reduced to "Spell-caster" and "Sword-swinger", which seems to be all American fantasy writers remember, these days.

I wish more fiction (and games) would draw on inspiration older than 1974. On the rare occasions where this is done, everyone is always stunned and amazed.

Yeah, most PnP RPGs don't have a "healer."

Let me expand and explain why there are only three archetypes, and why the other common class' fall under these three.

First would be the Warrior. The warrior archetype includes every class that focus's on martial combat - be it the sword master, marksman, or unarmed combat specialist. Common class' for this archetype would be the Monk (typically seen as a martial artist), Fighter, Barbarian, & Ranger.

Second, the Expert, or Specialist. This archetype focus' is around those who specialize in a variety of trades, be it craftsmanship, sage, spy, or other. Common player class' that fall under the Expert include the Rogue & Bard.

Third, would be the Mage, or Spellcaster. This encompasses all that dominantly use magic, be it Divine or Arcane (using the D&D branches). This includes the Healers/Clerics, Wizards/Sorcerers, and any branches thereof.

Also note that not all class' must fall firmly into a single archetype. For example, The Ranger is predominantly a Warrior class, but has many aspects of the Expert. The Bard, although undeniably an Expert, often has abilities of the Mage. And the Druid (D&D/Diablo version) is a hybrid between the Warrior & Mage.

Now, I will repeat once more - every fantasy class falls under one or more of these archetypes. Even Dungeons & Dragons, with it's hundreds of class', presents optional rules in the core books for narrowing it all down to these three.

As for the Guild Wars professions, their archetypes would be as follows:

Monk Mage, with a focus on 'divine' magic (protective, healing)
Elementalist Mage, with a focus on Evocation's (offensive, elemental)
Necromancer Mage, with a focus on Necromancy (curses, manipulation of life & death)
Mesmer Mage, with a focus on Enchantment & Abjuration (mental influence, anti-magic)
Ranger Warrior/Expert, with a focus on ranged combat
Warrior Warrior, with a focus on melee combat & heavy armor
Paragon Warrior, with a focus on ranged combat, heavy armor, & battlefield command
Dervish Warrior/Mage, with a focus on melee combat & 'divine' magic (self-supporting)
Assassin Warrior/Expert, with a focus on stealth-based combat
Ritualist Mage, with a focus on Conjuration (summoning creatures from elsewhere)

Just a couple of quick clarifications - not to troll, mind you, but to hopefully add something here.

First, the idea of the archetype was popularized by Carl Jung, one of Freud's students, who didn't buy into the whole carrot=penis, mother=buried incest thing. He believed that our lives are run instead by a sort of collective unconscious that fed into one of several archetypes, which was usually supplemented by a secondary. These include the self, secondary, shadow, anima, and so on. Jung got these ideas from mythology and "ancient" fantasy. Heros like Beowulf and Robin Hood, and villians such as Grendel and Loki even fall into these categories. Joseph Campbell's "The Power of Myth", and "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" expand on these ideas.

Second, Tolkein was not the first to think of elves, trolls, etc. Most of Tolkien's ideas were pulled from British, Scottish, and Irish mythology. Elves in Ireland were, in the beginning, as tall as men, if not taller, and were known originally as the Tuatha Dé Danann. Trolls, ettins, ettercaps, and others, including treants, were old characters from druidic myth. Tolkein was also not the first to devise of the idea that the Uruk-Hai were elves gone bad, as again, in Irish mythology, during the rule of the Tuatha, a sect of the elves broke off and became the Sinn Fein. Tolkein's change here is mostly cosmetic. Even dwarves and dragons are not original to Tolkein, as they have a long history in Norse mythology, back to the Nibelung Saga, and farther back still in Eastern tradition.

Spam post, I know.

I was just rereading Rhedd's post, and I found it interesting about the Eastern mythos bleeding into Western. In the past, West has always been about the hero - what he can do to change things. It's him against the world, and his actions determine the course of the universe.

In the East, it's always been the hero as a speck in the cosmos. His lot is his fate, determined long before him. He does what he has to do, despite the knowledge that his actions are meaningless to the universe. He plays his part because it was laid out for him, rather than rage against it, as in Western tradition. This leads to the antihero, the character who may have a chip on his shoulder, but does the right thing because he has to, not because of some noble calling.

Let me put this in Islamic relations for our other crowds who do not understand Western historical Figures.
Fighter= Tariq of the rock
Wizard=Balaam
Monk=Muhammad

I don't claim to have a great knowledge of Islam, but I did study it for half of a poorly taught half-GCSE.

I have never heard of Muhammad performing any actions that would be related to the RPG monk. I also can't see that kind of claim being taken well given what Muslims supposedly think of the Christian claims about Jesus.

It's possible that I fail to understand what you mean here, but I fail to see the purpose, from an RPG point of view, of a monk that can have no impact whatsoever. I don't think a monk that cannot heal (or protect or cause damage) would have much use, other than possibly to absorb a small amount of damage. I therefore logically conclude that the monk to which we are reffering is the kind that performs miracles, or can summon the power of god(s). These are 2 things that I see having very little connection to a prophet who never performed any miracles.


I would also like to question why a fighter or a mage cannot sneak around and steal things, or perform any other actions you desire a thief to perform.

I would suggest that we should be thinking more along the lines of:
-user of magic
-user of non-magical weapons/methods

TROLL!! heheh

Yep, the Wikipedia definition of archetype, which TwinRaven quoted, kind of sucks.

An archetype isn't just a sort of mold or template. It's not a typical character, it's prototypical. It's... archetypical. Gasp!

An archetype isn't just a way of categorizing something, it's a basic truth that resonates (supposedly) deep within our very being. Something we know is right and true at its core, regardless of temporary trappings.

That's why these D&D derived standard "classes", which people KEEP discussing as if they're set in stone, have nothing to do with archetypes.

The Mage, Warrior, Cleric, etc. are simply ways of codifying a set of rules to encourage a player to play a certain role, which should ideally be an archetype, but they're still just over-simplified rules.

What you say, Eon, about Tolkien's inspiration is exactly correct (well, maybe not every detail- his Elves are more Scandinavian- but in general, definitely), and that's why his works are still read and loved, long after his death.

Will R. A. Salvatore's books still be read sixty years from now? I can't actually see the future, but I'm still going to say... No. Neither will any of the books by any of the people that draw their inspiration from Salvatore or the same watered-down source material.

You have to dig deeper. You have to hit things that resonate deep within people, and for that, you have to go back to the actual archetypes, not the diluted, simplified concoctions which make for convenient game systems.

Modern fantasy is, to me, like classical music would be if all classical music was based off of a guy who heard Bach played once by a street performer on a pennywhistle, and decided that it would sound even edgier on a kazoo.

Forget the Cleric/Mage/Warrior crap and go back to the roots, and you'll be amazed at how wonderful fantasy fiction can be.

Or everyone could at least go read Tolkien again, to remind yourself that it's really nothing at all like D&D. ^_^

NOW, we're getting somewhere! Agreed, reference sucks a bit, I've no excuse for it (laziness maybe). I suppose I appreciate Jung a bit for his attempt to subvert the notion than every elongated item and every item with a hole in it means something sexual. His archetypes as listed in that particular site, are a a bit weak. I suppose a reference to Writing 101 and the 16 master archetypes would be closer to the root of it. You can also find good information on archetypes while looking through Joseph Campbell's Journey of a hero....Campbell tends to strike hard at the idea that these figures are common through all our collective pasts.

I see you point that classes are not archetypes, however, I do beleive they have a bit of a role in facilitating character developement when playing D&D. Character and Role in the old PnP RPGs often emulate the archetypical. The archetypes are often shown in deciding what course your character is likely to take. Race and class are part of the back-story of your character which determins if your character is reluctant hero, failed hero, doomed lover, etc. Facilitating the story, as we play through our characters, we draw on them.

As for Tolkien...I was trying to use a somewhat contemporary source (know your reader). I collect fairy tale and folklore from around the world (old books and new). I have taught high school creative writing, but my real forte is visual arts (as is probably obvius, given my spelling). I hate to see people falling into the idea that there is no depth to their character and just playing whack, cast, poke.

Literature is full of archetypes, of course, but they have also popped up in other aspects of ancient life and followed us into the present. Tarot cards and Astrology are filled with them. All of the myths, folktales a folklore passed through the ages are stuffed with images we see over and over...the Failed Hero/Fool (Rurik), The Betrayer (Justiciar Hablion), The Deciever (Vizier Khilbron)...and what role does the player play? Reluctant Hero, Fool (Leeeeroy Jenkiiiins!!!)...? Even at the begining of Morrowind, there's an extensive list of characteristics you pick for your character that are based on these archetypes (more so in Oblivion).

In Guild Wars we are given a choice of 10 professions. Each profession lends itself to literary/mythological archetype as they seem to be based on characters we have become familiar with over centuries of collective storytelling. As with any story, there is a hero. As with any RPG YOU are the hero....to help facilitate the story, you get to customize your character based on how you see yourself (hate to bring up Jung here, but there is a psychology to character creation and profession preference). Ultimately, if you play through the story, you are the hero GW's writers say you are...but variation comes through your choices before you begin the game.

We can look at each class in terms of its image and purpose and then draw connections to familiar archetypes, but without the player driving that avatar through the game, there is nothing but image and no substance.

That said: Maybe I should rephrase/rethink my OP. Maybe I should be asking "What archetypical character do you play?" and leave the image out of it. Images facilitate the character, but are not the character. Anyone can play the Fool, no matter what profession...though, the Juggarnaut (Tank), is likely to be Warrior or Dervish. The Mage is the "Truth-seeker" studying and looking for knowledge for its own sake...How can we say all casters fall into this category? Only a few players really study the skills, collect them all and seek to find all they can in terms of how they work...Anyone who plays this way, no matter the profession, is playing the Mage.

The original Ritualist image I was looking at, The Mystic/Shaman, has been around a long time...what struck me was the image I found that looked so much like the GW ritualist, I couldn't help but wonder the parallel...Last night I was watching "Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and saw robed and blindfolded characters...leading me to beleive it is more common that I originally thought. Though, the Renderosity image may be a clear rip-off.

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

My archtypes:

Warrior
Archer
Priest
Magician
Thief
Merchant


Imo the holy trinity is incorrect, it must be at least the evil 6 XD 666 ^^

Shhh, let TwinRaven and Rhedd do the talking in this actually interesting thread.