WiretrippaHey team,
I’ve been thinking a LOT about the concept of archetypes recently. Here’s my question:
Where do you draw the line of specificity for your archetypes?
UA sourcebooks talk about “The True King”, “The Savage” and “The Warrior”.
But I’m considering running a global level UA game that will deal with the vague nature of potential archetypes.
We’re talking the godwalker of That Guy At The Party, Your Host For This Evening, or a war between six potentials for ‘Dave, The Guy Everyone Knows’.
So, where’s the line between Archetype and Stereotype?
Looking forward to everyone’s opinion on this….
Wire.
WrattsIn a nutshell, the Stereotype, to me, is a powerful role model that is anchored in alot of people’s minds, while the Archetype is a primeval force that feeds upon something specific in everyone’s mind.
(Which is the main reason why I don’t like Archetype/Avatar designs that seem too modern or too “un-rooted” in the Collective Unconscious to qualify as a truly ancient Archetype.)
“The Mother” is a good example of a good candidate of being a primeval role (‘cuz who doesn’t have a mother, eh?). Something like “The Terrorist” however is not, because if we’d ask alot of individuals, we’d get alot of arguments on what the true nature of that archetype is, “The Boogeyman” on the other hand might be a good one, because even if there was no “Boogeyman” in your childhood, you probably just as well learned about “Boogeymen” (of one or the other sorts) in your adult life.
The bottom line for me though, is that there is no specific line to draw for the Archetypes, rather there is potential everywhere, and that more foothold in the Collective Unconscious means more power to the Archetype.
Applying this to “That Guy At The Party”-archetype, in my game this would mean that an avatar of that path might have weak taboo but also weak power that he gains from the Collective Unconscious.
And no matter how you correlate the game to the Occult Underground (if you do at all), I’m just wondering if the OU people would get as much as a laugh out of “The Dave, The Guy That Everybody Knows”-Godwalker as they’ve gotten out of the “Guy With Pencils Stuck In His Eyes”-Avatar.
Yet another thing to consider is that, supposedly, once all 333 spots in the Invisible Clergy are taken, the world ends, or some cosmic shizzle like that. Having Stereotypes fill in spots like the Archetypes would suggest all hell breaking loose very soon.
MessiahDaveMy best guess as far as the MVP goes is that it’s a reinterpretation of the more Universal “Champion” archetype, or something similar.
In the end, I prefer to just go with whatever archetype makes for a good story, though my general rule is to have a nice mix of old archetypes (mother, warrior, etc…) with a few modern ones thrown in for spice (the superhero, the MVP, the beautiful conformist).
WrattsIndeed the reinterpretation of the “Champion” is probably the root of the MVP.
I never had too much trouble coping with the MVP for one main reason: The Greek Olympics of ancient days. In a sense, the power of sportsmanship reaches very far back in the collective unconscious, as far as I can judge, and has always held power over the people all the way into modern days. It’s kinda misleading that Micheal Jordan is one of the very few suspected avatars in history according to canon, while a few other good examples would have probably been Milo of Kroton, Diagoras of Rhodes, Melankomas of Caria, Polydamas of Skotoussa, and Theagenes of Thasos. All Greek olympic champions. They didn’t have TV back then but the Olympics always had tons of fans.
Not to mention the Roman Gladiators! That is, as long as they weren’t proved to be true criminals… Gladiator, anyone?
Ars MysteriorumAh, American Gladiators…
I remember one skit on… SNL? It was American Gladiators Jeopardy!
Alex: “So, Nitro, the answer is ‘This yellow citrus fruit is used to make LEMONade.’ ”
Nitro: “A lemon.”
Alex: “Could you please state that in the form of a question?”
Nitro: “A lemon?”
stange_personActually, I heard a joke about DtGEK. Only, the name was Frank.
Somebody doubts Frank’s credentials. Rule of threes; Frank takes him to visit the mayor, the president, and finally the pope. Of course, some random guy can’t come in to see the pope just because he doesn’t believe Frank, so Frank says that he’ll just stand next to the pope on the balcony while the doubter watches in the crowd. Frank comes out, sees doubter in the crowd faint suddenly, rushes back downstairs to get help.
Doubter explains: Somebody asked me, “Who’s that guy in the funny hat next to Frank?”
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.