He’s what parents and children fear most… seperation
Attributes: The Child-Snatcher is what parents and children fear – the stranger from the outside who tears apart families, who takes children away from their parents forever. The Child-Snatcher is what parents cannot protect their children from, whether the children need that protection or not. Sometimes the Child-Snatcher is a random force, but not always – he can also serve as an agent of punishment, either for parents or for children.
The Child-Snatcher himself stands apart from family and society, a force not explicable and accountable. As an incarnation of nameless and almost irrational fears, the Child-Snatcher works hard not to be part of the social bonds he destroys. To a casual glance, the Child-Snatcher archetype looks pretty evil, and most of the time it is. But the Child-Snatcher can have a good side: the social worker who takes a child away from abusive parents and into care channels the Child-Snatcher as surely as any murderer – parents and children fear separation, but their fears don’t always reveal what’s best for them.
Taboos: The Child-Snatcher can never have normal familial relationships or friendships. Any contact (especially loving) with family is taboo, as is developing a friendship. Relationships make the Child-Snatcher accountable and understandable… and that is not what the archetype is about.
Symbols: The bag of sweets, the whip, the cage, the social-worker’s clipboard, long nails, being very clean or very dirty. Many of the accoutrements of the Masterless Man or the Pilgrim also crop up around the Child-Snatcher, for it is often an itinerant archetype too.
Masks: The Pied Piper, Lilith, Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang’s Child-Snatcher, the Bogey-Man.
Suspected Avatars in History: King Herod may have channeled the archetype during the Massacre of the Innocents. The organizers of the Children’s Crusade may also have been avatars.
Channels:
NOTE: For the Child-Snatcher, ‘children’ qualify as anyone 15 or under. The ‘rightful guardians’ of a child are always include their parents. People who have adopted them, or foster carers usually count too. As for more informal or temporary arrangements… they might count, they might not.
01-50: The Snatcher can make himself appealing to children through the use of a fetish. This might be a flute, a bag of sweeties, or a social worker’s clipboard. Whatever it is, a child confronted with the item will trust and follow the Child Snatcher if he can make a successful Avatar: Child-Snatcher roll. The effects of this channel are broken as soon as the Snatcher does anything hostile to the child, his family, or anyone he cares about.
51-70: The Snatcher now becomes intensely forceful and persuasive when dealing with his target’s rightful parents and guardians. Whenever the avatar tries to cajole, intimidate, or otherwise use his persuasive skills on such people, he may substitute his Avatar: Child-Snatcher skill for the one he would normally use.
71-90: Whenever the Snatcher picks a target, he may designate one of his skills as his means for getting this child. Whenever he uses that skill in the process of the snatching, he can substitute his Avatar: Child Snatcher skill for it. For example: a social worker needs force a child’s abusive parents out of his way, so he designates his ‘Struggle’ skill. A darker avatar wants to make the sleeping drug he laces his candy with especially powerful, so he designates his ‘Making Sleeping Drugs to put in Candy’ skill.
91+: The children the Snatcher takes will remain ‘snatched’ for as long as they are a child. A child placed in social care will remain there until it’s an adult, and no lawsuit will rescue it. A child hidden in a dark cave somewhere will be trapped until it comes of age (at least). A child that’s killed (and so remains a child forever) will never be found.
Oooh. Combine the last channel with a major effect that stops the kid from aging…you’ve got a child who simply can’t escape from his captor. Ever.
Creepy.
Also, every channel would totally apply to avatars of The Child, I reckon.
Are avatars of The Child considered metaphysically youthful til they break taboo? The idea of a Godwalking Child Snatcher with a prison full of Adult Children creepily cool.
If the Godwalker of the Child Snatcher continued to capture the most powerful Avatars of the Child, could that erase the Child as an archetype? I mean, we’re already seeing a loss of innocence, aren’t we? Twelve year olds having sex…
Who says anyone really has a childhood any more?
Sounds less like an avatar and more like a powerful Cabal with an agenda.
Or a cabal of avatars. Or a cabal dedidcated to reshaping The Child via The Child Snatcher.
Room for everyone!
Contrariwise, I can easily see a high level Mother avatar having her child taken away by a high level Child Snatcher (as a social worker most likely), and this leading to an all-out Avatar War.
Even messier, she ends up becoming a serial killer that hunts down social workers, gradually shifting from the Mother archetype (she failed to “protect” her child from outside threats, breaking taboo) to the Dark Stalker archetype (which needs no explanation).
Those Mother Avatars who die before their mission is complete, of course, become Snowfallen.
Killing the Child Snatcher in question might help rescue the child, depending on how long an Avatar’s channels continue to work after they die. I’m assuming they don’t, except for certain cases of the Merchant and even then with carefully worded contracts. Thoughts?
The first channel is really powerful (for someone whose life revolves around snatching children). The third channel is equivalent to a lot of first channels I’ve seen; if I ran a Child Snatcher avatar, I’d switch the third and first channels.
I really like the concept! I think this is a fear ingrained deeply enough in us that it could ascend as an archetype. It’s also one of the better executions of an avatar path that I’ve read so far.
As for X’s question, it makes sense that one would be able to find a child after the Snatcher’s death. Of course, you still have to figure out where the kid is . . .