Heroic arch types.

[Trencher]

Hello everyone.

I am GM'ing a Fantasy hero game and are always looking for stuff to let my players spend points on. 

I been toying with an idea for Heroic archetypes that players can buy to difference them from each other and have as a reward for great role playing. 

Like they have to had fulfilled this or that heroic ideal to be able to take one of these abilities. 

And I would like some feedback on if this is a good idea, if the types I chosen is any good and if the abilities I chose for each archetype is worth the point cost.

 

As for the archetypes I did want something with a bit of a unique feel and not like different types of paladins or knights from dnd. These archetypes are supposed to represent what the characters are not a series of wows they need to upheld. 

I also have just come up with six archetypes and I would like 7 as its a cooler number so if any of you have an suggestion I all all ears. 

 

Also these are not psychological limitations so there are no codes against killing or anything like that. This is just to give character concepts a little more meat on the bone and to reward and encourage heroic role playing. 

 

This is what I have so far

 

Refined hero: This hero like many others values justice, honor and all that but see them as something that needs to be learned and taught. Fair play is very important to this hero and ethics, diligence and being protective of those weaker are key words here. An Refined hero could also be called an noble hero as he or she is a bit of a knightly archetype. 

 

Pure hero: This hero represents heroes that just are heroes. They dont think over it. They dont have to learn it as they pretty much just are naturally good. This archetype in fiction are often virginal or chaste of some kind but this is not necessary for this archetype. Rather an pure hero would just love their equal partner and not put it into some kind of social or moral context. 

Pure heroes can sometimes be naive, they give villains chances to surrender, they help people who just fell into quicksand when they tried to push them into it and so on. 

This is an archetype that represent abstinence, sacrifice, openness and gentleness. 

 

Kind hero: The kind hero is the most common hero archetype in our world. This hero have a lot of compassion is generous with their time and help and take pleasure in empathizing and understanding others.  Despite the simple name kind heroes are often the most complex and conflicted as the kindness of their heart can go against what they know is right. 

For instance while other heroes dislike to kill or feel sad over a life lost the kind hero feels their victims pain even if they had to kill the person to save their own or someone else life. 

Kind heroes are often the most emphatic people around and sometimes feel alone because they dont feel connected by causes or principles as much as they feel human emphatic connection.  And few have the same level of emphatic prowess as an kind hero.

A kind hero represent compassion, mercy and generosity. 

 

Logical hero: The last twenty to thirty years have not been kind to the logical heroic archetype and they been shown as robotic, cold hearted or just misguided. 

The logical hero however is one of the most resilient of heroic archetypes and the least likely to fall to darkness or anything like that. Logic after all is all about clarity and truth and to the logical hero what is good for people is the greatest truth. Logical heroes have many beliefs and philosophies but they all have a tendency to fall on the side of humans are good and deserve to be protected, nurtured have freedom and live full long lives. To the logical hero evil and aggression are just waste of time and the people doing them can off course be dangerous but ultimately unless everything goes wrong they can be brought over to the side of good or at least there is possibility for some understanding. One of the few things that really provokes an logical hero is an villain that wraps themselves in sophistry and such to justify their to the logical hero primitive actions. Logical heroes are represented by wisdom, humanist and progressive principles. 

 

Loyal hero: Some philosophies would perhaps argue that the loyal hero archetype is not a hero at all but in fiction this archetype appear often and follows the rules for heroism to the letter. 

The loyal hero is a person that would go through fire for his or hers friends and not only that but also someone who try to build other people up and support those they are loyal to with all their heart. 

Loyal heroes not just people who like hanging in a group but people who are loyal to their core and will put others before themselves without a second thought. To qualify as a hero its not just enough to be moderately loyal so long you are not in any danger or trouble yourself. The heroic archetype of the loyal hero is a person who go a lot further to help those they are loyal to. Loyal heroes represent positive strength and to be protective. They are often quite enduring as well and its through that endurance they loyalty goes from being a positive trait to something heroic.

 

Balanced hero: The balanced hero have a mind of their own and are often dedicated to justice. However this can be an natural inclination or a taught dedication the balanced hero is about justice not how its achieved in the end. The balanced hero sees things from both sides and they also recognize that conflict is not just between people but also raging inside people as well. A balanced hero could also been called an contemplative hero but since the balanced hero dont really need to be a philosopher archetype balanced works better. Like logical heroes balanced heroes thinks that humans are good at heart and ultimately all that is evil can be explained, understood and ultimately defeated through rational discourse. If people are willing to do it off course. 

Balanced heroes are represented by the concepts of compromise, benevolence and positivity. 

 

As for abilities I am having an fantasy campaign where I try really hard to hold CV to 7 and damage classes to 8. But with shields and maneuvers, longer weapons and stuff that is hard at least when it comes to CV. Also magic is powers and can cost quite a bit. This is balanced by that everyone plays magic users of some kind and there are no rules that stops them from wearing metal armour or certain weapons. 

 

So here are the "rewards" I am thinking of when it comes to heroic archetypes. 

 

Refined hero: +1 ocv skill level vs worthy enemies. Worthy here being enemies that are more powerful and have more CV than the hero. 

 

Pure hero: plus 3 power defense vs evil magic. In fantasy stories some people are to pure to fall to some kind of evil curses and stuff so I think it might fit.

 

Kind hero: +3 presence, a flat bonus as this is going to be a reward representing the kind hero stepping up and its often more impressive when a kind person does that.

 

Logical hero: +1 dcv skill level vs monsters and weird creatures. Where others might panic or be stunned the logical hero just analyze the situation and does whats necessary.

 

Loyal hero: I am thinking +5 ego if their friends are in danger and maybe even +3 in con only to avoid getting stunned as well.

 

Balanced hero: This interesting and rare hero could get +1 to all skills as they are careful and thoughtful about what they do. 

 

So is this something? If you were a player would it be interesting?

[archer]

I'm not sure that I completely understand what you're going for here.

 

1) You're allowing the people, who are already magic-users, to buy these powers which generally have severe limitations.

 

2) The powers are tied to how the player is expecting to roleplay the character? I think? So what happens if the character doesn't roleplay the character like that? Does he keep the power? Lose the power? Lose the power plus get refunded the points he paid for it? I'm not quite sure I understand how you visualize this working.

 

Anyway, supposing you have magic-users who buy these powers with severe limitations which are tied (in some manner) to the way they're roleplaying.

 

Some of the powers are very, very small...which would be a major concern of mine if I were a player. I might not know exactly what I'm going to do with a character when I'm first starting out with it and expect that I'll grow into a pattern of behavior based on events in the campaign. I wouldn't want to lock myself into a type of behavior in exchange for a very, very small power that I have to pay for anyway.

 

(And how does the +3 PRE for the Kind hero work? I pay 3 points to get 3 points worth of characteristics then have to lock myself into roleplaying a certain way? And I suppose the characteristic bonuses would allow characters to go over the characteristic maximum? Or not?)

 

I suppose the powers are persistent and don't count against any "maximum number of spells you can have active" cap but still I wouldn't be very attracted to that in the form you've proposed here. (But I'll admit to being highly allergic to anything which smells like D&D alignment railroads so I might not be the typical player.) 

 

Now for specific tweaks,

 

Refined hero: +1 ocv skill level vs worthy enemies. Worthy here being enemies that are more powerful and have more CV than the hero. "More powerful" is a GM judgement call that I'd be leery of. But if I were playing a magic-user with AoE spells so that I could have a very low CV, I'd love this one. More cheese, hands down.

 

Pure hero: plus 3 power defense vs evil magic. Even with magic being fairly common, power defense doesn't come into play very often. Very situational to meet an opponent which has an ability which interacts with power defense and even then, there's no guarantee that the Pure hero would be the target. I'd think something which would kick in at least every other session would be needed in order to keep the player from thinking he made a mistake picking this.

 

Kind hero: +3 presence. Maybe useful if you want to go over CHA maxima? If you aren't, not sure why you'd pick this immediately rather than waiting until you have 3 points to buy up PRE.

 

Logical hero: +1 dcv skill level vs monsters and weird creatures. Where others might panic or be stunned the logical hero just analyze the situation and does whats necessary...you make the logical hero sound like he should have PRE defense instead. But the DCV would probably be more useful.

 

Loyal hero: I am thinking +5 ego if their friends are in danger and maybe even +3 in con only to avoid getting stunned as well...getting 5 EGO which won't be useful often or that plus 3 CON which would be useful literally all the time. But eight active points of benefits when other hero powers get only three....

 

Balanced hero: This interesting and rare hero could get +1 to all skills as they are careful and thoughtful about what they do. This is a hell of a big benefit compared to many other powers. Any character who is a skill-monster would pick this one. Maybe interesting but this hero isn't going to be rare (unless your whole campaign is a slugfest which doesn't use skills).

 

 

All of the archetypes are put forward as "heroes". I think you might think about putting the ones who aren't blatantly heroes forward as "archetype" or "character" instead of "hero". I don't particularly want my GM trying to lock me into the role of "hero". And when I can afford to be picky about GM's, I'd be leery of joining a campaign which presented me with a choice of what kind of "hero" I'd like to be when I'm not even sure yet how heroic I want my character to be.

 

I can understand a GM not wanting to run a campaign for villains. But at the same time, there are bards, thieves, card sharps, and a whole assortment of other characters who don't particularly think of themselves as heroes...even if they end up playing the hero more often than they'd strictly like. 

 

It just seems to send a wonky message to players who are thinking they want to be the thieving, killing, mercenary Conan or a Bret Maverick.

 

I'm half asleep and rambling. Hope this made some sense and wasn't offensive.

[Hugh Neilson]

My first thought reading through it, like Archer, was that these feel like pretty minor benefit.

 

The other things I really felt reading through it was "what is the difference between these various types of heros?"  The descriptions are pretty vague and the lack of any examples makes it pretty tough to figure out which narrow slice of "Hero" my character fits in with.

 

To Archer's other point, for me this would only work in a game where all the players have bought in to playing "heros", and using this to differentiate the heros so they are not all identical boy scouts.

[Thia Halmades]

I’ve read through it, but what I see is kind of a mess. The reason for the D&D archetypes — your “four core” and their subclasses — is because they’re drawn from history, or the story gestalt, or the collective subconscious, and then sufficiently romanticized to have a look and feel, then mechanically built to reinforce that. HERO, of course, unless you build those class packages everyone can kind of do their own thing within the boundaries of the campaign. First, campaign limits, good idea. ALWAYS a good idea. But.

 

Your idea, on the whole, isn’t resonating with me. I’m not seeing a proper build/link/benefit chain. To Hugh’s point, these benefits are comparatively minor in the grander scheme of things, and moreover, they are highly proscriptive and in some cases vague. What constitutes a worthy enemy? Is it always one? Can 20 lesser dudes constitute a worthy foe? To your ‘pure’ concept, if we go back to the literature, the common point of purity, from a story telling perspective, is to tarnish it and then gain something less abstract and more concrete. There are examples of characters who start pure and that’s their “thing,” but they are few, far between, and not nearly as memorable as, say, The Red Cross Knight, or the Iliad, etc. ANYWAY. My literature major aside.

 

Now that I’ve said that, I’m left to my primary issue: what I see here doesn’t work for me; I would love to give you what you’re asking for, but I’m not seeing a fully fleshed out idea. So you want to go off from the standard subclasses; Fighter > Paladin/Ranger, Rogue > Assassin/Burglar, etc. Before you can do that, you have to define where these things fit in your world, and why they fit and give them more “teeth” than what you’ve got here. I don’t mean to be a downer or harsh, but it’s kind of like a writer’s circle; if you’re looking for feedback, then my feedback is “this needs a lot of work before I can comment further.”

[archer]

On 10/4/2020 at 6:32 AM, Trencher said:

 

Refined hero: This hero like many others values justice, honor and all that but see them as something that needs to be learned and taught. Fair play is very important to this hero and ethics, diligence and being protective of those weaker are key words here. An Refined hero could also be called an noble hero as he or she is a bit of a knightly archetype. 

 

I'm rambling again and very sleepy. I wanted to take a crack at giving a further explanation or a condensed explanation of some of these archetypes while it is on my mind. At least what I'm getting from the explanation.

 

For Refined hero:

 

Teaching/ethical - has standards, wants to help people, but also wants the people around him to learn (either from his examples or from his teachings).

 

Quote

 

Pure hero: This hero represents heroes that just are heroes. They dont think over it. They dont have to learn it as they pretty much just are naturally good. This archetype in fiction are often virginal or chaste of some kind but this is not necessary for this archetype. Rather an pure hero would just love their equal partner and not put it into some kind of social or moral context. 

Pure heroes can sometimes be naive, they give villains chances to surrender, they help people who just fell into quicksand when they tried to push them into it and so on. 

This is an archetype that represent abstinence, sacrifice, openness and gentleness. 

 

The good guy who sees himself as a hero. Not given to deep thoughts or reflection, just does what's "right" according to his instincts at the moment.

 

Quote

 

Kind hero: The kind hero is the most common hero archetype in our world. This hero have a lot of compassion is generous with their time and help and take pleasure in empathizing and understanding others.  Despite the simple name kind heroes are often the most complex and conflicted as the kindness of their heart can go against what they know is right. 

For instance while other heroes dislike to kill or feel sad over a life lost the kind hero feels their victims pain even if they had to kill the person to save their own or someone else life. 

Kind heroes are often the most emphatic people around and sometimes feel alone because they dont feel connected by causes or principles as much as they feel human emphatic connection.  And few have the same level of emphatic prowess as an kind hero.

A kind hero represent compassion, mercy and generosity. 

 

Empathetic. Naturally shows mercy, generosity and compassion. Genuinely wants to understand others as well as help others.

 

Quote

 

Logical hero: The last twenty to thirty years have not been kind to the logical heroic archetype and they been shown as robotic, cold hearted or just misguided. 

The logical hero however is one of the most resilient of heroic archetypes and the least likely to fall to darkness or anything like that. Logic after all is all about clarity and truth and to the logical hero what is good for people is the greatest truth. Logical heroes have many beliefs and philosophies but they all have a tendency to fall on the side of humans are good and deserve to be protected, nurtured have freedom and live full long lives. To the logical hero evil and aggression are just waste of time and the people doing them can off course be dangerous but ultimately unless everything goes wrong they can be brought over to the side of good or at least there is possibility for some understanding. One of the few things that really provokes an logical hero is an villain that wraps themselves in sophistry and such to justify their to the logical hero primitive actions. Logical heroes are represented by wisdom, humanist and progressive principles. 

 

The thinking man's hero. He thinks deep thoughts and sometimes gets lost in his own mind. But he deeply believes in the philosophy and ethics he has chosen to follow, even if his ethic might seem odd to others (Shoot the hostage??!!). Very sure of himself in all circumstances because the surrounding circumstances never change who he is in his core. 

 

Quote

 

Loyal hero: Some philosophies would perhaps argue that the loyal hero archetype is not a hero at all but in fiction this archetype appear often and follows the rules for heroism to the letter. 

The loyal hero is a person that would go through fire for his or hers friends and not only that but also someone who try to build other people up and support those they are loyal to with all their heart. 

Loyal heroes not just people who like hanging in a group but people who are loyal to their core and will put others before themselves without a second thought. To qualify as a hero its not just enough to be moderately loyal so long you are not in any danger or trouble yourself. The heroic archetype of the loyal hero is a person who go a lot further to help those they are loyal to. Loyal heroes represent positive strength and to be protective. They are often quite enduring as well and its through that endurance they loyalty goes from being a positive trait to something heroic.

 

Loyalty is everything. That loyalty might come through love, maybe through friendship, or from a teach/student relationship. But whoever has his loyalty has that loyalty to a very profound level. Will go to extremes to help those who have his loyalty. Very deeply wants the people to return that loyalty and become better people themselves through knowing him.

 

Quote

Balanced hero: The balanced hero have a mind of their own and are often dedicated to justice. However this can be an natural inclination or a taught dedication the balanced hero is about justice not how its achieved in the end. The balanced hero sees things from both sides and they also recognize that conflict is not just between people but also raging inside people as well. A balanced hero could also been called an contemplative hero but since the balanced hero dont really need to be a philosopher archetype balanced works better. Like logical heroes balanced heroes thinks that humans are good at heart and ultimately all that is evil can be explained, understood and ultimately defeated through rational discourse. If people are willing to do it off course. 

Balanced heroes are represented by the concepts of compromise, benevolence and positivity. 

 

Interested in justice rather than law. Tends to take the long view. Believes in the goodness of people. Believes that people can be redeemed when shown the error of their ways.

 

Quote

 

 

[Trencher]

Thanks for good feedback all. 

First to the point that you as a player would feel enclosed in having to take this heroic archetype. Well the hero aspect is already solved I did the super trick and talked to my players before the campaign and got them to play heroes. 

I dont want to bore you with details of my fantasy campaign but I guess I have to explain a little. Its made to have an beginning a middle and an end and the campaign world is in an dangerous situation which only the heroes can stop. 

So I asked my players to play heroes and they agreed.

It is a sand box and they can choose how to go about it but there is a ticking clock of a great evil and all that good fantasy stuff. 

 

Off course as GM I do a couple of things to aid them playing heroes. For instance defeated common foes are just that. Defeated and even if they did not die (Infarct most of them are knocked out but not dead) they "have a change of heart" after their brush with death and stop being thugs and bandits and just leave to live their life in peace. 

That way players dont have to go around execute them afterwards but also dont have to bandage their wounds and extort them to the nearest authorities either. 

Off course with named enemies they do capture them and they do have a "stronghold like" prison of sorts with some old enemies in. 

 

All in all I try to create a narrative where they can focus on saving the day and doing cool stuff not busy work and boring stuff. 

 

As for the point about the benefits being kinda thin and not worth the cost,the benefits are low yes and they might be too low. I would like to read your thoughts about how to make the rewards more substantial. 

 

The campaign have an cv max on 7 and max 8 damage classes and most killing attacks are lower than that. 

 

The enemies they mostly face goes from dex 8 to dex 11 and might come with shields and weapons that gives them plus 2 to dcv and plus 1 cv in general. They also have martial art as it creates more tactical feeling fights.  

 

They all play people with special powers and they can design their first power themselves, one created a slow spell others chose animal companion and fireball. 

 

They are built on 25 points and 25 disadvantages but there is an option to go to a higher level of power later where they will get 25 points of disadvantages with if they choose them.

 

I initially thought that having the rewards be small was a good idea and are quite surprised that you guys thinks its wuss crap not worth the time. 

But if you think it then my players will think it to and probably feel a lot stronger about it lol. 

 

That said this was not meant to be something characters pick at the start of the game but they unlock by how they do their heroic deeds. To help the players differentiate their characters so they dont turn into a bunch of identical girl and boy scouts. So even if they argue about the best way to do something when faced with a moral dilemma I can say after its all said and done that player A gets a logical hero point and player B get a Pure hero point and so on.. And when they had unlocked enough points to get the power they could write it down on their sheet that they unlocked -->HERO POWER<-- so and so. And not everyone can get that. You know to create a memory of sorts, and to reward their efforts in an non intrusive manner. 

 

Also Archer thanks a lot for your thoughts about the hero types themselves who also rubbed people the wrong way.  That is a series of concepts that need more work as I was vague on purpose while brainstorming.  But I think that will need its own post so people who quote can talk about the types and the mechanics seperatly in them. 

 

 

[Thia Halmades]

I never understood why people got so hung up on the whole STUN/BODY “he’s not dead?!” ...thing. Monsters die when they hit 0 BODY. That’s just a thing that happens. Only major NPCs get the same benefits of PCs in terms of not being gacked at 0 BODY. It isn’t 15 napping goblins, it’s 15 very dead goblins, including at least one decapitation.

[Trencher]

Ok to address your criticisms of the heroic archetypes I made up. 

 

The refined hero can both be an mentor and an apprentice and in general they will often be in such roles. But they can also just be people who value civilization and human rights. 

Im thinking guys like Obi Wan from Star Wars. Or Rey also from Star Wars. Picard from Star trek maybe? Aragorn and Samwise from game of thrones. Only seen some episodes of that series.

Refined heroes can be everything from an retired general who try to tell young up and comers to calm their passions or a travailing barber woman who refuse to join in a schemes that dont target the oppressive trade syndicate that have an iron grip on the city. Because targeting the common folk would -just- not -be- decent!

 

The pure hero: Here is where I see the first cracks in my concepts coming up as you took it to a negative point. That is very useful as I did not create these archetypes with an negative viewpoint on them in mind but were rather busy with being vauge so it could include as many types of characters as possible. 

As for the pure hero I am thinking that they can indeed be very wise. But its a child like pure wisdom based on intuition and clarity that comes from not being dragged down by their own shadow if that makes sense. As for pure heroes I am thinking Luke Skywalker or other fantasy character like that. While many might find such character boring in a book I can guarantee you that its fun in an adventuring group of friends as they can contrast of eachother. This is the only time I disagree a little bit with your assessments of the heroes Archer btw otherwise you been pretty much on target. 

 

The kind hero: A bit more realistic hero for the more mature role player, you pointing out that the person genuine wants to understand others was a good idea. My concept was a person who liked people because they understood their feelings even though they might not have agreed with them but wanting to understand is also a great heroic quality. 

Lot of fictionally heroes fit here. Gandalf for instance. Or Han Solo from Star Wars(kind heroes can understand villains as well) Frodo is a kind hero.

 

The logical hero: Being sure of himself, being odd to others and getting lost in his own mind is great character traits that would flesh out an hero. And they certainly fit. But an logical hero could also not have those traits. My wish for this hero is to give the rules lawyers and the careful players an positive look at being logical. 

The logical hero could be Mr Spock or Odo from Star Trek but I dont really remember them that much so I might be wrong. 

 

 

Loyal hero: While your point on the loyal hero wanting to have people be loyal back are well made the loyal hero can or can not have that trait. This hero arch type will be different in different cultures more than the others I expect. As for example I am thinking Sam from Lord of the rings. Other than that loyal heroes are a bit of a catch all for heroic characters that dont really have any reason for being heroic other than that they dont want to abandoned their friends and allies. 

 

The balanced hero being more interested in justice rather than law was not something I was thinking of but such a hero would be terrifying for the villains indeed. 

In fiction this is usually what the hero becomes at the end of the movie especially in martial arts movies. 

Data from Star trek  or Finn from Star wars. Elves are often this type of heroes in classic fantasy stories Arwen and Legolas are balanced heroes.

 

Again this concept need some more work so any input is welcome.

 

 

[Thia Halmades]

Where the disconnect lies isn’t in your idea; “Mentor” is a well established trope, Galahad was I believe the most loyal of all the Knights of the Round, etc. It’s that you’re taking something that is broadly embedded in the “who” of a person, and making a mechanic around it, and calling it a “what.” 

 

Who is Jean-Luc Picard? (You can wiki it). WHAT is Jean-Luc Picard? He’s a Starfleet Officer, specializing in Sciences, and helms what was at the time, the pride of the fleet, and its flagship, the NCC-1701-D, “Enterprise.” So if I’m building Picard, I’m going to be focusing on the what, and will lay some details and ground work for how I role play him as part of “who” he is.

 

I am considered an exceptionally loyal person; I cost 1 less point when people put me on their character sheets as a high level contact (I cost the same as any other acquaintance) but I’m SO LOYAL that I’ll cover part of your cost to keep me around. It’s WHO I am. WHAT I am is a 6’4” hyper minded video gaming bad ass with specialization in gaming, cooking, tech, and mortgage banking. I have a lot of CHA based skills and I use them liberally. 

 

So you’re making this sort of big deal around the mechanics of “who” someone is, and it just doesn’t jive with me. I think the idea, on the whole, is interesting, but there’s also the part of my brain that says “these things come from role playing.” Which of course leads us to one of Thia’s Rules: “It’s not enough to dislike it, you have to offer a solution of some kind or shut up about it.” My solution is this:

 

Keep your general concept, but instead of shoehorning it into how people are playing, leave it to them to “trigger” those events and bonuses. For every 3 role-playing actions that mark someone as, say, generous — they get a token they can cash in for the benefit “Pay it Forward;” the character’s generosity has, in some way, returned to them. It could be a temporary ally (see; Summon for a series of fights), free lodging “You saved my boy from a week of slavery, your money is no good here.” And so on. And in case you think that’s the “kind” hero as you describe it, it isn’t. Generosity with money isn’t always a kindness; it can be a matter of expediency, it can just be how that character solves problems.

 

Take Kage, my Rogue/Warlock. Kage solves his problems, more often than not, with gold. Because of this, Kage has “walking around money.” And he’s always on the edge of being broke, but — after he’s done threatening, interrogating, and otherwise making your life difficult, he always says words to the effect of “Wow, that was stressful but very enlightening. Take this gold, get yourself a hot meal. Thank you so much for your time.”

 

Watching NPCs react to that doesn’t get old. He promised an enemy combatant they wouldn’t be dead and he’d buy them breakfast. They aren’t dead; they got knocked out and left on a rooftop — with their bow — and a gold piece. Kage is true to his word. What you have is the start of a framework for rewarding specific kinds of heroic actions, and I would bend it toward doing that, which gives people plenty of latitude and keeps options open, instead of closing them off.

[Spence]

I've read through it a couple times and I have to say I'm not tracking this.  None of this has anything to do with archetypes as I understand and use the term.

 

To me it sounds like you are trying to codify D&D style alignments without defining good and evil.

 

I am probably off point, but that is what it sounds like to me.

[Thia Halmades]

1 hour ago, Spence said:

I've read through it a couple times and I have to say I'm not tracking this.  None of this has anything to do with archetypes as I understand and use the term.

 

To me it sounds like you are trying to codify D&D style alignments without defining good and evil.

 

I am probably off point, but that is what it sounds like to me.

 

That’s exactly what I came away with, but was desperately trying to veer away from it. And yet. Here we are.

[Spence]

26 minutes ago, Thia Halmades said:

 

That’s exactly what I came away with, but was desperately trying to veer away from it. And yet. Here we are.

Ooops...

 

 

[archer]

4 hours ago, Trencher said:

Aragorn and Samwise from game of thrones. Only seen some episodes of that series.

 

 

I highly recommend that you see more episodes of that series to help you understand it better.  

 

Thanks for making my day.

[Trencher]

10 hours ago, archer said:

 

I highly recommend that you see more episodes of that series to help you understand it better.  

 

Thanks for making my day.

Yeah Aragorn from games of thrones. Remember him? He used the glaive to save baby Garfield from the Gorgs. lol!

 

I meant Aragorn from Lord of the rings and Samwise from Game of thrones just in case someone reads this and dont know what I am writing about. 

 

Thia Halmades: Yes the players will get to unlock the archetypes during play its not something they have to choose when they start to play. They would not even know what to choose. Its supposed to be a prize. 

 

Also Kage sound like gold. That type of style and flair is what I like in pcs. 

 

Spence: I would like to not sound like I am trying to codify alignments since I dont like that system that much.  I mean back in the day when it was lawful, neutrals and chaotic s it was okay I guess. Because there were some chaotic creatures that had good intentions and some lawful that were cruel. 

But when they started with throwing in good and evil stuff there as well it got all muddled up and now Dnds (actually pathfinder) most popular campaign has an Lawful Evil satatan like supreme god who only let all the other gods exist because he feels guilty of killing the good god and he will make people see the value of iron discipline and law and order through sadism and having the coolest armours in the game. Good luck with that I say lol.

 

Its not an attempt at codifying but exploring instead. Different approaches that reveal not as much where the pc come from and what shaped the character but its core soul, what makes it different from others who are not heroic. I feel if I could make this concept more palatable I would be able to nail the 7 hero concept. 

 

Any thoughts on how big the rewards should be?

 

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

On the topic of rewards, how important do you want this to be in the game?  The greater the desired importance, the greater the rewards should be.

 

If you want this to be a central focus, I would look past a single reward to a chain so, perhaps, a 3 point reward is attainable pretty early on, with higher tier rewards attained as the game progresses and they become more focused on their archetypes.  But that makes this a campaign focus, and starts feeling like a class system.  Unless that is the goal, I'd definitely keep the rewards a small proportion of total character points, and starting a 3 points for a 150 point character is in the range, at least at the outset.

 

But any mechanical benefit leads to mechanical gamesmanship.  If I'm not planning on playing a high PRE Face, not much  point  pursuing the archetype that nets me a bit of extra PRE, is there?  The Face will still out-charm and out-impress me.

[Thia Halmades]

I mean.

 

I am CHArming and Impressive. It’s my 2nd highest stat. So I’ll play the face, but I’m not very nice. Heroic, but not nice, so then am I being punished because my play style, while amazing, isn’t in line with this sort of Arthurian/Chivalric vibe? I played paladins my whole career. I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners have much more fun. So where’s the reward for dancing on that edge? You know? Chaotic Good?

[Spence]

4 hours ago, Trencher said:

Spence: I would like to not sound like I am trying to codify alignments since I dont like that system that much.  I mean back in the day when it was lawful, neutrals and chaotic s it was okay I guess. Because there were some chaotic creatures that had good intentions and some lawful that were cruel. 

But when they started with throwing in good and evil stuff there as well it got all muddled up and now Dnds (actually pathfinder) most popular campaign has an Lawful Evil satatan like supreme god who only let all the other gods exist because he feels guilty of killing the good god and he will make people see the value of iron discipline and law and order through sadism and having the coolest armours in the game. Good luck with that I say lol.

 

Its not an attempt at codifying but exploring instead. Different approaches that reveal not as much where the pc come from and what shaped the character but its core soul, what makes it different from others who are not heroic. I feel if I could make this concept more palatable I would be able to nail the 7 hero concept. 

 

Any thoughts on how big the rewards should be?

 

I never liked D&D style alignments myself.  But they were simply their attempt to codify a PCs moral compass which I understand. They used good/evil and order/chaos but that is not a requirement.  

 

You are using terms such as Pure, Kind and Logical.  On the face of it that sound like common terms, but the framework you have plugged them into is not standard.  The definition of Pure is very subjective. As is Kind. One persons kind act is anothers insufferable meddling. 

 

I really don't see enough of where you are heading to give any kind of useful input. To me you are setting up an alignment system without solidly defining the key terms.

[Thia Halmades]

I apologize, I’m with Spence on this; I can’t focus on the rewards because, in effect, I’m three rooms away back at the white board going “Nah, this isn’t right” and you’re trying to talk to marketing about how people should be rewarded for a system that I’m not ready to let out of the room, much less move onto reward design. I gave you my best answer based on what you’re saying, and I think Hugh said something similar, but beyond that I won’t be much help here.