A dirty secret about archetypes: they don’t have to be seen as human. They need to infect human consciousness, and humans must act them out as there’s no else to do it, but they can be viewed as anything whatsoever.
Take quote-unquote ‘monsters’ for example. The vast majority of them in all cultures, and certainly those that survive in any significant form during the present day, are some modified form of human. We have humans-reanimated-dead (vampires, ghosts, ghouls, zombies), humans-beasts (werebeasts, sasquatch’s, satyrs, mermaids), humanoid-subraces (cavemen, titans, trolls, hobbits), humanoids-of-otherplaces (human-shaped aliens, faeries) and even humans-manufactured (living statues, golems, Frankensteins, androids) walking all around our collective semi-conscious. They’re described as deviants from a human ‘base form’, being anthropomorphic yet profoundly not homo-sapiens, and they fascinate us. Maybe it’s because we’re too self-involved to speculate on anything too different from ourselves for too long, maybe we define and examine the human condition by these hypothetical outliers, maybe they’re just easier to build for theater troupes and SFX studios.
A more sinister explanation is that they indeed evolved from humans, sublimating into their present form by the magic of belief. Some deranged hunter had kinship with coyotes, hunting along with their packs, and night after night, cowering from his howls by the campfire, his frightened tribesmen transformed his image into a ‘man-beast’, a ‘shapeshifter’. A big dull-witted man living alone by the bridge, feeding on the tribute of unwary travelers and occasional cattle-snatching, was turned into ‘troll’ by the recounts of survivors and scouts. A man wrongfully buried, clawing his way out of the earth, found himself shunned and pushed into violent anger by superstitious townsfolk who dubbed him ‘revenant’.
As such tales circulated along trade routes and warpaths, the unsuspecting avatars of ‘monsters’ gained strength and momentum. Each new birth of a child with anomalous eyes was easier to explain as a ‘changeling’, each agonized scream in the night was more readily attributed to the doings of a ‘ghost’. We populated the darkness, the wilderness, the unknown reaches, with beings more-than-man, less-than-man, other-than-man, but at their heart, human beings forced into a part. The more damaged or ruthless of them grew into their adopted roles, or used the new symbols to gain power over their fellow men. Count Vlad Tepes, more commonly known as Dracula and drinking the blood of his foes as a terror tactic, was a prime example of this even before Bram Stoker’s novel cemented his ascension.
The monster archetypes are unstable, even more so than other denizens of the statosphere. The fact that their masks must always lie outside of ordinary human experience makes even brief encounters with them reshape and redefine what they are in the massive belief that makes truth. These encounters must be horrific and recognizable to claw their way into the minds of men, and must never expose the avatars as the humans they really are (or were, if they’re sufficiently far gone). Encounters gone wrong may distort the archetypes, giving them somewhat contradictory traits.
Furthermore, the current cultural climate surrounding monsters is complex – on the one hand, they’re as captivating as ever, featuring handsomely in the emergent massive media. Many mimic their supposed ways, with some widely publicized cases of people going as far as to believe they actually are what they impersonate. On the other hand, everybody “knows” monsters are not real, that they’re something we humans created for our own fancy. Somewhere in the cracks between superstitious belief and scientific doubt, the gaps between the harsh glare of searchlights and the neon blare of movie posters, the monsters hide from and feed on humanity.
So, what would a person walking a “monster archetype” path these days be like? First of all, she would need to be viewed as other, as different, as somehow less a person than other people are. This could be due to a brush with the unexplained, unusual characteristics and circumstances or even plain weirdness. Reinforcing that belief, that expectation of herself and others, she’d act in ways that people associate with the “monster” they secretly think she is, even without admitting that such a thing really exists. Her journey is a transition from what is construed as being human to what is considered being the monster. Family ties, normal social interaction, psychic wholeness, cultural assimilation and even feeding habits, sexual behavior and personal hygiene define us as members of human society, while disregarding or perverting them separates her from the herd. At some point, she’ll probably start thinking of herself as a monster, as something deviant and possibly evil, gazing at humanity from outside. She will need to define exactly what she is or what made her this way, and in so doing probably shape what people think that *thing* is.
Some rumors about monster archetypes:
* A mega-cabal is setting us all up for a zombie apocalypse. As soon as enough people “know” how the zombie-infected should act, they’ll announce the release of the “virus”. Their plan is that those that buy into it after being bitten will devour the rest of us.
* Since most avatars and even godwalkers don’t think of monsters as potential ascendants, or even as real, we’re that much closer to 333 ascended archetypes (and the end of this world) than is assumed. Even worse, monsters will severely effect how the new one looks like.
* Naturally, vampire avatars have loads of power and influence, as well as a lot of in-fighting over it all. The elder ones waged a very successful propaganda war to strengthen the archetype’s hold over humanity since the Victorian era, but some upstart vamps are trying to pervert the ‘classic’ image of the vampire to oust the old guard.
* The whole thing with “mutants” is just a scheme for the shapeshifter archetype to survive in this age of bygone mysticism.
* Angels are just another form of non-human avatar, however opposed to other members of this sub-group. Whatever wisdom they impart draws from the collective dream, not from on high.
* Believing in the equality of men actually makes men more equal, as well as assimilating a lot of exotic and ‘humanoid’ groups into the homo sapines fold.
This is an appealing idea. Belief in monsters is easily ancient enough to qualify them as archetypes (in the way that “the Hacker” or “the Astronaut” cannot be, though those could be latter-day interpretations of “the Thief” and “the Sailor”). I wouldn’t think, however, that the Wolfman, the Killer Robot, or the Space Alien are currently prowling the Stratosphere, partially for lack of candidates for ascension, but mostly because those roles are too precise and too specific to individual cultures. Many Asian cultures, for instance, have vampire-like creatures in their mythology, but the details are very different from the contemporary European/American conception of vampires (even if we discount – no pun intended – their current manifestation as glittery emo teens.)
What might work well is to build your archetypes around the five broad categories of monsters you identify at the outset. Call them something like the Living Dead, the Beastman, the Subhuman Brute, the Otherworlder, and the Artificial Man. Popular superstition could push the occasional person into these roles by the means you’ve suggested — a rare occurence, perhaps, but enough to provide candidates for ascension. The one example where I have trouble seeing how a person could ever get misidentified into the part is the Artificial Man. Perhaps a lone member of the Clergy is not originally human; a major automaton, empowered by its creator’s entire store of memories, might be close enough to human to qualify.
The problem is that by introducing deliberately non-human Archetypes, you’ve inadvertently introduced archetypes for every other mobile living thing, real or imagined. The ‘Godzilla’ archetype. The ‘Cat’ archetype. The ‘Monkey’ archetype.
While intriguing, it does push the Archetype count a little high. Too close to the ceiling for most GMs. And since (so far in canon) only humans have the ability to ascend, then it seems unlikely that these archetypes exist as members of the clergy, instead of psychological constructs that have no metaphysical impact on the cosmos.
So the best option is to use your suggestions while repeating the MST3K mantra. It’s just an TRPG, shut up and go with it.
On the other hand, there’s nothing to say that there isn’t the potential for the “Cat” archetype or the “Monkey” archetype, but are there humans that believe enough in them for them to currently exist?
I’m sure some non-human archetypes have more weight, and are thus more likely to be Archetypes, than others.
Additionally, the Monster Archetypes may not follow our classification system. There might not be a Vampire Archetype, a Werewolf Archetype, and so forth. Archetypes on behavior are more likely.
Which, along those lines, there’s nothing saying that a Hunter or Dark Stalker may not have been mistaken for a Monster Archetype in the past, or that a modern Avatar might try to usurp the old position to identify more strongly with our monsters (turning the “Hunter” into the “Werewolf,” for instance).
I think pretty much everyone believes in cats and monkeys, but that belief isn’t the kind that will boost Fuzzy-Whiskerface into the Statosphere. As I understand the archetype system, the archetypes exist not because a handful of deranged cultists believe in the archetype as a god, but rather because a great majority of humanity recognize the archetype as defining a distinct human role.
Since only a few crazy people will think of “the Cat” as a type of person, Tunabreath McShedsalot doesn’t get to ascend.
Speakercontext’s contention here, as I see it, is that most of humanity’s monsters are not really imagined by mankind as something truly inhuman, but as rather a sort of extreme variations on humanity, and thus they potentially qualify to form archetypes. After all, there isn’t a whole lot of daylight between the ideas of “the Huge Thug” and “the Ogre.”
I think this would fit with UA, just so long as the monstrous Archetypes are written broadly enough to span cultural divides.
Perhaps I misspoke. I didn’t necessarily mean “belief” in the archetypes so much as a human place in the archetypes.
The “Cat” probably isn’t a viable archetype — but then again, what might Stalking Cat be trying to do?
Your understanding of the archetypes is correct (I think), but I still argue that there is the potential for any archetype. Some are just significantly more likely than others.
Sure. If you can manage to manipulate the collective consciousness enough, no archetype is truly impossible. I still think, though, that there’s a point where the distinction between “impossible” and “wildly improbable” becomes very thin.
Even with the support given to him by the popularity of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Cats,” Stalking Cat’s blatant effort to ascend as the Cat is, I think, almost as doomed to failure as it would be if he wanted to join the Clergy as “the Teapot.”
Of course, the children’s song “I’m a Little Teapot” could be the relic of a previous failed bid…
Oh, I totally agree that it’s wildly improbable. I’m mostly just throwing things out there.
I also recognize the better likelihood of Monster Archetypes as they explicitly come from us. Even something totally monstrous such as Grendel has a common ancestor with humanity.
Now that that’s settled, how do we define individually monstrous archetypes?
There’s clearly room for a ‘really big guy’ monster, but many of the others suggested seem to fall into something all ready covered, like the werewolf (demons that possessed a wolf before possessing a human) or the vampire (taken and run with by the sleeper source book’s adventure, and covered by the dark stalker).
Why not just one, Monster archetype?
Each channel could be a single attribute of monstrousness. Each channel you select gives you one power, and one curse, such as a deformity of the mind or body. In order to go up a point in this archetype, you have to transgress against some universal human mores. The taboo is expressing sorrow, or trying to make restitution, and so on, for what you did.
From the example of the guy living under the bridge. He murders those who don’t give him tribute for crossing the bridge. But over time he starts to try and trick them into insulting him, or tries to make sure they can’t pay in some way, so that he can murder him. He breaks this universal taboo enough times, that he unlocks a channel of the monster. So gains some power, maybe he makes it so the bridge will be the only way to cross this river within a days walk, any other bridge will collapse and any boat will sink. The deformity in exchange for this is he is now incapable of spending a night anywhere but under the bridge, he must live there forever. His next power grants him great strength, so he can always overpower anyone who tries to force their way past, even a whole army. This deforms his body so he is hideously ugly.
Just like you can already choose a final channel for yourself when you reach 99%, in this archetype you choose a channel which has both a power and a curse, whenever you and your GM agree.