Lets all try to be a little more original

[srl51676]

I have been looking at the character ideas that are being posed and seeing a trend. It is a trend that flows from one game to the next and its getting a bit old I wan to see if we can break the cycle and come up with something that breaks the stereotype of gamers. I understand the attraction of these types but isn't it getting a bit old.

Post character ideas that do not fall into the following categories
1) "I'm evil but not really" examples include Kincaid, Thomas Raith, Angel, Spike, and drizzt do'urden.

2) "Law Breaker" any character that is a dodge on the 7 laws.

3) "Lone Wolf with something to prove" examples any character played by Tom Cruise, Dirty Harry, and I hate to say it Harry Dresden

Also post any other archetypes you feel are over done.

[iago]

Harry's friends have been very good about training him out of that lone wolf mentality.

I'll also say that our collaborative character creation method makes creating lone wolves a bit tough.

[Jaroslav]

1) "I'm evil but not really" examples include Kincaid, Thomas Raith, Angel, Spike, and drizzt do'urden.

I wouldn't really put Thomas in this category. It's not like he's heartless monster who suddenly turns into a good guy, like Spike is. He's just a decent guy who's trying to handle being a vampire.

[srl51676]

@Fred, Harry is improving and you are right about the character creation. It is one of many things I love about the game, its  ready made party unity and no more of this so you meet in an inn crap.

@Jaroslav: As far as Thomas goes his motivation is an excuse for him to be likable. He is exactly like spike its just that his monster period is not covered much by the books. He was no virgin when he met Harry in "Grave Peril". Do you think he wasn't eating before that? And now he has reverted to what he was. Just ask anyone who has been through AA or NarcAnon just because you stop drinking does not mean you aren't an alcoholic. I understand the attraction. Most of us gamers were unpopular growing up and never got the girl so we all wish we had some dark secret power that we could unleash on our tormentors but hold barley in check around the girls. It lets us be the bad boy they all seem to want while maintaining the kindness that we are all sure makes us better people than the jocks they snubbed us for.  I don't want to go all pop psychology on this but look at what sells and who we all dress up as at cons Boba Fetts always out number Lukes even-though Luke was the star and Fett had like 2 lines just like Kincaid who's popularity vastly out weighs his face time in the books. We even have a guy on here who is obsessed with Cowl a faceless 2nd banana villain who is in 3 chapters of one book and then dies.  Wolverine, Batman, The Punisher,  Edward, The Comedian, Rorschach even Han Solo was a reformed drug smuggler the list goes on forever. The only really virtuous heroes that really get any love are Harry Potter and Spiderman and even Spiderman had to put on the black suit for a while so he too could be dark and conflicted. I am not saying that they are not good characters I would just like to see us branch out a bit.

[Ihadris]

I think part of the reason that some of these character tropes keep appearing is that they are appropriate to the genre. Many of the main characters in Dresden are walking a very fine line in a very grey area and I think that sort of feel is likely to appear in peoples games with the RPG.

From an actual gameplay perspective suggested character types, like the White Court Vampire, by their very existence have to have killed through feeding and unless they want to become an NPC are likely to be the "Im evil but not really characters".

Personally I dont see these kinds of characters as a problem, if thats the sort of game my players want and the sort of world they want to explore then that is fine by me. But where I think we will see some real originality is with the Pure Mortal, Were-Form and Changling templates.
 

[blackheart]

Part of the issue might be that the Dresdenverse by it's very nature does not lend itself to black and white characters.

Even Murphy, the closest thing to a lawful-good paladin (excepting Michael Carpenter) has a history of relationship issues and hit a really rough patch after Kravios' ghost ran her over.

If you want a "let's be HEROES" game, I salute you. Sometimes I want to be the clearly good knight slaying the clearly evil dragon to save the clearly in distress princess.

But the Dresdenverse is rarely clear-cut and easy to navigate. Kinda like life. Which is part of it's appeal.

[Jaroslav]

@Jaroslav: As far as Thomas goes his motivation is an excuse for him to be likable. He is exactly like spike its just that his monster period is not covered much by the books. He was no virgin when he met Harry in "Grave Peril". Do you think he wasn't eating before that? And now he has reverted to what he was. Just ask anyone who has been through AA or NarcAnon just because you stop drinking does not mean you aren't an alcoholic.

I don't think Thomas ever had a monster period.

(click to show/hide)

Even now when at his worst he still doesn't want to go around killing people.

I think the only time Thomas ever killed someone by feeding was when he first transformed. Since then I see him as struggling with what he and his family really are.

(click to show/hide)

Until his recent transformation that is.

I just want to say the main reason I'm defending Thomas is that I think it's possible to play a white court vampire that doesn't fall into the "I'm evil but not really" cliche, and I think Thomas is a good example of that.

[srl51676]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree no matter how conflicted he is about it he is still character wise no different than Angel or Drizzt Do'urden he is an excuse to play a dark sexy bad guy with out having to deal with all the negative social repercussions. I am not say that these characters are not playable they are I just think that they are way too popular for the reasons I have listed before. I would like to see gamers, myself included, work a little harder in coming up with an idea. If people are going to be derivative, which in a license game is inevitable, why is no one on this board emulating Murphy, Michael, or even Harry no what we have are a bunch of Thomas, Kincaid, and Cowl clones. Again I am guilty too my first character idea was a white court caster. I'm just trying to encourage all of us to stretch a little bit more.

[iago]

So, in one of my earliest playtesting games, I had a guy playing a dude in a trenchcoat who was cagey and didn't talk much. You'd think this was a stereotype, right?

Well, he had some reasons for being that way.  Maybe it was the fact that he had a talking ancient mask stashed in his (enchanted) overcoat that was the source of much of his power. And that mask insisted on staying hidden whenever other ancient (or not so ancient) powers stood nearby.  (Another player's theory about that mask is what lead to the notion of an Autumn Court that crept into the book's text just a little.)

And he also wasn't going the loner route. As I recall, he was a bodyguard by trade, and that had bound him closely to the other PCs.  He might be a very private person, but he had plenty of reason to hang around other people, to be part of a group -- even if it was "just a job". (Or was it? His mask's attitude towards the work he did was unusually encouraging.)

So, this is something I wanted to point out because I think it breaks the loner paradigm neatly and clearly.  Loners, for me, are people who actively work against being a part of the group.

I don't think Thomas qualifies, there.  Family is important to him, whether we're talking about his brother or his sister.  He's a joiner.  He might have lots of reasons to lie, to put off airs like he doesn't care, but he does.

As to "I'm evil but not really" side of things: I think the other posters have got it right. There are very few examples of unalloyed goodness in the Dresdenverse. So that's not an escapable paradigm.  We can't all be Michael -- nor should we.  If Michael Carpenters were frequent, they wouldn't stand out as such an important, vital part of the mortal struggle against the supernatural.

[Saedar]

I have a character idea based on the character of Ezekiel "Zeke" Stone from the Brimstone series. A little more magic, a little less guns, but then, I've always had a huge crush on magic  . Would you say this falls into the category of "evil but not really?"

Can you explain a little further about what you mean with these categories? For example: Drizzt and Angel are two VERY different characters. They both have a "tortured history" (ASPECT!) but they manifest differently. Drizzt is a truly good individual who is trying to fight back against the stigma placed on him based on his racial identity. Angel is trying to cope with the horrible and LONG history of his own.

Also, for Lawbreaker, if this game is set to take place at the height of the Vampire-Wizard war, it might make sense for there to be more and more talents popping up that don't have the guidance to avoid breaking the Laws that they might have had with the White Council before the war broke out.

[Mickey Finn]

Stone wasn't actually evil...he was condemned to Hell by a single mortal sin. (What's more, it's a justifiable, moral cause in the eyes of some, and removed someone who was actually evil...but it was still enough to condemn him, no matter who's right or wrong on the issue.)

 So, no.

And you get a brownie for knowing that show existed, let alone being a fan. Two brownies if you're a fan of Profit as well.

[iago]

And you get a brownie for knowing that show existed, let alone being a fan. Two brownies if you're a fan of Profit as well.

Brimstone was one of my favorite (canceled) shows, m'self. I never got a chance to get into Profit, tho Rob D. loaned me his copy of the series a while back. It was definitely an interesting one, but I dunno that I would score the double-brownie points.

[Saedar]

Stone wasn't actually evil...he was condemned to Hell by a single mortal sin. (What's more, it's a justifiable, moral cause in the eyes of some, and removed someone who was actually evil...but it was still enough to condemn him, no matter who's right or wrong on the issue.)

 So, no.

And you get a brownie for knowing that show existed, let alone being a fan. Two brownies if you're a fan of Profit as well.

1.) Brimstone was amazing. I actually hadn't heard of Profit, though. Thanks! You just gave me something to do at work tonight instead of working!

2.) That was kinda my point about Stone. Not all characters who have some kind of evil sponsor or have a somewhat dark history fall easily into the "evil but not" category. Sometimes, people are just plain unlucky.

[iago]

1.) Brimstone was amazing. I actually hadn't heard of Profit, though. Thanks! You just gave me something to do at work tonight instead of working!

2.) That was kinda my point about Stone. Not all characters who have some kind of evil sponsor or have a somewhat dark history fall easily into the "evil but not" category. Sometimes, people are just plain unlucky.

These are the "goosed by Evil" type of characters. Which Harry *maybe* is, depending on what you think of Mab and her current ownership of his debt.

[Saedar]

Yeah.... But is Mab really evil? More like unrepentantly cruel!