Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.9351221 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

What's a good concept for an Assassin character that isn't just LOL EVUL?

Image related, but I don't want to rip off AC either.

>> No.9351246

I had a rogue who believed if one person could go and do all the atrocities that good people refrain from doing, he could head off a lot of harm. All it required was someone willing to do it, in full knowledge of what it did to them.

He ended up being that person. I gave him the Insomniac and Detached flaws to represent his difficulty living with himself and his tendency to avoid focusing too hard on things for his own mental health. Made a great tortured character. For bonus fun, nobody else knew what he was up to, he just seemed to constantly be tired. Wore this amicable, friendly exterior, so there was no WOE IS ME whining. He knew what he was getting into.

>> No.9351286

An Assassin/Bard whose "heroic tales" are actually quite creepy, and who has an unhealthy fascination with serial killers.

Might not want to do this one if you're actually gothish though, or people might think it's personal rather than purely IC.

>> No.9351305

I dunno.. This is probably evil, but not lol-evil. This was in WoD however, and it's hard to port to a fantasy setting.
Basically he killed of people whose existence only made it worse for mankind. For instance, people leeching of the system, people whose sole motivation is greed, poor people who don't gain strenght from their weakness to rise above themselves..
Simply put, people he classified as useless.

>> No.9351311

>>9351305

In DnD, you can do that and be good.

>> No.9351321

I ran one who considered assassination the quickest route to his goals.

He wasn't really a contract killer or anything, more of an adventurer, but he weighed his own abilities with his goals, and decided that the best way to deal with threats was when they were asleep in their beds.

He tended to be rather meek, avoiding others when they were strong. Some guy seriously fucks with him in a bar, for example, makes threats and such, he would use social skills to disarm the situation. Then later, when the guy went to sleep/headed home, he'd knife the fucker.

>> No.9351322

Make him lol-neutral instead. He doesn't care who lives or dies, he just kills for bounties.

>> No.9351335

>>9351321

You actually raise another big point there, which is that it's rather difficult to make Assassins who actually ARE Assassins.

I mean, killing nobles in their sleep is one thing, killing orcs in their base is a completely different thing.

>> No.9351341

Ahhh, Karoman. Where there's a god of death that you not only like but actively root for, where necromancers primarially exist to let loved ones say goodbye, the temples to the goddess of compassion double as brothels, and assassins double as lawyers. That's right. Let's say that you and your neighbor have a disagreement. Your neighbor goes and hires an assassin for one Trade. (Their version of currency.) After checking to make sure that there's no other secure legal recourse, the assassin goes and tells you that "Hey, there's a contract out in your name. In a month, I'ma gonna kill you." You have three choices. Either patch things up but quick, make a counter-offer to cancel your contract (they're under no obligation to tell you how much it is, only if it was enough AFTER you've paid them, so you could destroy your entire savings by making a counter-offer on a contract that was the equivilant of one dollar), or prepare to die.

Of course, if it's something stupid like "Every time he's working he humms a song that drives me mad" you're gonna get laughed out the door. And no, don't lie about your grievance; yes, they will investigate, and yes, you are fined up the wazoo for lying about it. Also, if you try to make ammends, that very same assassin will do his damnedest to help negotiate a peaceful resolution.

>> No.9351344

>>9351305
The most original post I've read this week.

I feel enlightened.

>> No.9351345

>>9351335
Or goblins in their tower.
That stupid FUCKING game...

>> No.9351347

hissatsu shigotonin comes to mind

japanese series about a team of assassins who work outside the law for justice... and $

>> No.9351350

>>9351311
Killing poor people in the slum, just because they accomplish nothing? No. That's quite evil.

>> No.9351359

>>9351335
To him, assassination was a skill-set, not an occupation. Better to think of it that way from an RPG standpoint.

He was like a rogue, but more specialized. He had the exact same goals as most adventurers(money, mostly) he just went about them in different ways.

He was creepy, and a little cold blooded, but he wasn't really any more evil than your standard guy. His methods were just a little more ruthless.

>> No.9351366

>>9351286
Have the bard be a comedian, with stand-up as his method of storytelling.

>> No.9351372

>>9351341
What setting is this then?

>> No.9351373

Having a character that just enjoys what the job entails is fine.

He likes his work, he's good at it - he doesn't really enjoy killing people but it is the sad reality of his life, he has to do it or he'd be some street urchin.

If you make some LOL KILLAN IS AWESOME OH GOD MONEY AND WHORES style assassin you come off as a total mary sue

>> No.9351375

someone could be forcing him to do it against his will, depending on the setting it could be a demon, a deity, or something more "mundane" such as blackmail or a hostage situation

>> No.9351387

>>9351373
yeah kind of like Leon the Professional... sure he was an assassin, but all around not a bad guy

>> No.9351395

>>9351311

You didn't read his whole post. D&D lets you kill evil people, not "useless" people.

Good/evil in D&D puts intrinsic value on life and human dignity. This guy didn't.

>> No.9351401

>>9351395

Bah. Neutral then.

>> No.9351406

he could be a paranoid schizophrenic who doesn't think the people he is assassinating are humans/native beings and someone could be exploiting his insanity

>> No.9351409

>>9351387

Exactly having an assassin that shows compassion and appreciates human life (in particular natalie's character) is actually quite sweet.

Think about it, if he was some bad-ass(no emotion just kick ass and chew bubble gum) with a tag along loli no one would think that movie was even half as good as it is.

>> No.9351411

>>9351401

Thankfully, it was in WoD, so I didn't have to care about that.

Ah. He was so much fun.

>> No.9351416

>>9351409
well yeah, without her there would have been no character development

>> No.9351424

>>9351341
Holy fucking shit! I remember this! This has that fuckawesome god of death!

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/4050993/#4053041

It took me a few to find it.

>> No.9351429

>>9351373
>If you make some LOL KILLAN IS AWESOME OH GOD MONEY AND WHORES style assassin you come off as a total mary sue

I wish I could hate you to death. We aren't discussing unreasonable character powers, we aren't discussing inexplicable character powers, we aren't discussing a lack of meaningful flaws, we aren't discussing the overshadowing of existing characters, we aren't discussing inexplicable successfulness, we aren't discussing a mismatch of author/reader endearment. Nothing you just said is even tangentially related to any of the qualities which define a Mary Sue.

If I could make you stop coming to this website I would do it.

>> No.9351430

morag tong from morrowind. Arguably good, but not evil

>> No.9351438

>>9351416

Exactly, OP could make a character that is a single father (don't make it gay and say the mother is dead or something stupid and dramatic) and is trying to support his estranged wife and kid but any means possible, it just happens to be rogue/assassin stuff.

He gets paid, gets the gold delivered to them, he continues working and never gets a word of praise or recognition from either his family, or his employer, all he knows is he's doing the right thing, just via someone else's morals.

>> No.9351440

>>9351430
Badass motherfuckers, too.

>> No.9351445

>>9351221

>> No.9351449

>>9351440

Boring that they are legal though.

>> No.9351469

>>9351429

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Perfect character, attention whore, etc.

That awesome assassin that can do backflips, kill everyone in the room laugh about how awesome he is, and says he's playing a chaotic neutral character but is actually playing a full on chaotic evil character and attempted to minmax so he was "perfect"?

Trust me, I've played with a few of these.

>> No.9351493

>>9351469

The GOLD AND ALE AND WHORES thing isn't a mary sue, it's just a shallow character.

>> No.9351518

>>9351469

"LOL KILLAN IS AWESOME OH GOD MONEY AND WHORES style assassin" Does not imply any of the flaws which you are now discussing.

"Mary Sue" does not just mean "bad character". Being an attention whore has nothing to do with being a Mary Sue. Being a perfect character IS related to being a Mary Sue, so at least you're doing a little homework now.

>> No.9351524

>>9351493

No he just did that when we were attempting to do a main plot device.

Nothing wrong with Gold, ale and whores, but assassins don't really lead the lifestyle of AWH YEAH IM GONNA PARTY WITH THEM WENCHES WHEN I'M DONE THIS MISSION.

Most of them are in some form a guild, are reclusive, don't like people etc, or for instance going around and partying like a madman could lose your cover.

I mean there's nothing stopping you from making a character like that, just some people mind find it's a bit ridiculous.

>> No.9351543

>>9351524 assassins don't really lead the lifestyle of AWH YEAH IM GONNA PARTY WITH THEM WENCHES WHEN I'M DONE THIS MISSION.

I'm pretty sure Assassins can live however they want.

I mean, they've already rejected the most basic premise of society, "though shalt not murder", they certainly aren't going to be limited by what's considered good taste either.

>> No.9351554

>>9351372
See...
>>9351424

I'm glad that somebody remembers! Makes me feel awesome.

>> No.9351555

How about a predator? A serial killer who enjoys the hunt more than anything. The stalking of a prey.. it's more of a game than anything else.
This can be LOL-evil if done badly. But if the character only ignores the morality, just because he gets and adrenaline high out of the hunt, and gets off at the killings.. That can be an interesting character.

Depends on player skill.

>> No.9351567

>>9351524
A Mr.Deadpool to see you sir.
Shall I show him in?

>> No.9351569

>>9351543 Assassins are not limited by good taste

Going by NMH... this is very true.

>> No.9351584

>>9351567

deadpool is just a dick, with a side of assassin, like how you get french fries with a hamburger.

>> No.9351592

Ran a doppelganger assassin that was kind of just raised into it. Decided to keep with contract killing after getting away from her former mentor since she didn't know much else. Generally preferred evil targets since they paid well and not many would miss them, but took good clients if the pay was good enough and the target wasn't anything that could hurt her reputation, such as children. Character was more neutral than anything. Killing was just a job, nothing particularly good or evil about it.

>> No.9351617

>What's a good concept for an Assassin character that isn't just LOL EVUL?

A stupid kid who thinks all of his friends will like him if he stabs people they do not like.
Sadly, he finds out that they're reasonably terrified, cue him terrorizing them just to keep them around.

There's your hobby-assassin. Somebody who was too stupid to be a decend person.

>> No.9351631

Rolo from Code Geass. Assassin, evil, but not LOL EVUL.

>> No.9351644

Someone who was brainwashed or has amnesia or something, but remembers fragments of assassin conditioning they went through, and use those abilities for good.

>> No.9351660

>>9351555

If you like fantasy serial killers you should look into Pathfinder bugbears.

>> No.9351669

>>9351644 brainwashed... amnesia...

BORING.

>> No.9351683

>>9351669
It can be good if it's done creatively.

>> No.9351685

>>9351644
>>9351669

It's not 'boring'. It just very, very Square-Enix.

>> No.9351694

>>9351286

Conversely, an Assassin/Bard who fights using the DEATH METAL style, which consists of dual-wielding an axe and a guitar.

>> No.9351710

>>9351286

As someone who has a lot of fun playing with concepts of "heroism" and the perversion thereof, I'd like to offer you a drink.

I'd play that.

>> No.9351720

>>9351286
>>9351694

I'd play either of these.

I doubt I could successfully combine them though.

>> No.9351722

>>9351694

Where the guitar is also an ax, and the ax is also a guitar.

With another ax attached to it by a chain.

>> No.9351724

>>9351644
You see, I have ...

...

...

AMNESIA!

>> No.9351737

He's a family man, with a wife and kids at home. When he's away at business he'll send a simalcrum to watch his kids' recitals. He really cares about his family, but feels general disdain for humanity as a whole.

>> No.9351740

>>9351720

It's feasible. There's a note of fuck-yea-this-rocks vile grandiosity which could make the two concepts work together; the whole idea that murder is glorious and people should be inspired by it.

It'd be tricky to pull off though, especially if you're going for the 'creepy' vibe while also trying to pull off the ax-guitar silliness.

>> No.9351755

I will just leave this here

>> No.9351757

>>9351569
Travis was pretty awesome.

I mean, you've got this absolute loser who blows all his money on pointless shit like anime figures and lucha libre masks and a (admittedly fucking awesome) tricked out bike.

Then he buys a laser sword and decides to become an assassin, and it turns out he's actually really good at it.

He's still an absolute loser, just one who's very, very good at killing people.

>> No.9351769

>rip off AC
>rip off a bad reimagining of the Hashashin

>> No.9351779

>>9351757

Also, he blows all the money he makes as a world-class assassin on animu figurines and funding research on more laser swords AND A GIANT MECHA.

Which is then immediately taken away after he uses it.

>> No.9351811

>>9351779
He didn't even buy the mecha. If you go talk to the girl, she rants about how you need to pay her back.

But yea, Travis is a loser pretty much 90% of both games.

>> No.9351813

>>9351755
Psychopath batman that talks to himself, never seen that before.

>> No.9351833

In the LARP that I play in, my next character is going to be an assassin who received a message directly from God (read: religious conversion/alignment shift) when he tried to kill a high-ranking member of the Church. He then joined the Church and acts as a counter-assassin against those who would harm the clergy (putting his skills to good use.) He believes quite emphatically that he is the hand of God and protector of those in His Light.

>> No.9351857

>>9351221
>What's a good concept for an Assassin character that isn't just LOL EVUL?

1. Write Unaligned in the alignment box
2. Use whatever concept/backstory you want to fluff out your Assassin

See how easy that was. Yes, you can.

>> No.9351864

>>9351813
>has never watched Dexter. It would eat into too much of his Kamen Rider and Tentacle Porn time.

>> No.9351877

>>9351864
Dexter isn't a very good show.

>> No.9351893

>>9351877
subjective

>> No.9351894

>>9351877
>implying kamen rider and tentacle porn is better
Wut?

>> No.9351913

>>9351894
>>9351893
White Knighting DexterMind

>> No.9351917

>>9351877

>Dexter isn't a very good series of books

>> No.9351918

>>9351894
>implying Dexter is better

Wut?

>> No.9351939

>>9351918
>rubber monsters being beaten up on a kids show
>toon porn. TOON. PORN.

These are objectivley worse than prime time shows on major US networks. Even bad ones.

>> No.9351948

>>9351864
I watched him get arrested on the news a dozen over.

There are books, comics and films featuring him in a thousand different settings.

2deep

>> No.9351952

>>9351939
Kamen Rider is fucking excellent.

>> No.9351962

>>9351755
>>9351813
>>9351864
>>9351877
>>9351893
>>9351893
>>9351894
>>9351913
>>9351917
>>9351918
DEEDEE, GET OUT OF MY LABORATORY!

>> No.9351968

>>9351962
Bump.

>> No.9351985

>>9351221

Try a lawful good paladin who absolutely hates the idea of killing his way trough a bunch of minions to get at the head chief evil guy.

>> No.9351992

>>9351948
>Never hard of Karl Jung either.
Go look up arcetypes.
Go look up how there are only like 20 stories, each populated only by blends of about 7 possible characters.
And stop saying herp derp X character is too close to Y character, because hey, it's been like that since fucking Gilgamesh.

>> No.9351998

>>9351857

You didn't actually help him in any way. In fact, telling him what alignment to play is restricting his options.

>> No.9352011

>>9351939
>objectivley worse

Fuck, I laugh every time.

Stay spergy, /tg/.

>> No.9352020

>>9351992
>>stop

Hah!

>> No.9352055

>>9351992

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Even considering that all characters can be reduced to a handful of archetypes, there are still too that are just too derivative for my tastes.

>> No.9352067

>>9351952
Still objectively worse than a major us primetime show. Budget, plot, acting, etc. You mat still enjoy KR over the us shows, but it's still objectively worse.

>> No.9352079

>>9352067
Acting and plot are subjective.

A higher budget doesn't make one show better than the other.


I agree with you, but you're not using the term objective correctly.

>> No.9352107

>>9352067
>objectively worse.

This is a contradiction in terms.

Saying "shit tastes worse than chocolate" is a subjective statement. Saying "matches are more useful for survival than action figures" is a subjective statement. Saying "living is better than dying" is a subjective statement. Value judgments are always subjective; objective statements cannot address worth or value.

You should have been taught this in elementary school.

>> No.9352113

>>9352020
Derp
>>9352055
>all characters boil down to the archetypes
>some are too derivative
moron.
You don't understand archetypes at all.
ALL CHARACTERS ARE DERIVATIVE.
THEY ARE ALL DERIVED FROM THE ARCHETYPES.

>> No.9352138

>>9352113

To varying degrees. Some are more derivative than others (either of other characters directly or of the archetypes themselves).

>> No.9352141

>>9352079
>>9352107
You're both objectively wrong.

>> No.9352160

>>9352141

Your wife is about to objectify my dick.

>> No.9352166

>>9352160
+1

Funny how it goes.

>> No.9352167

Sup, OP!
I'm currently using a rogue in D&D 4E that's basically The Prince of Persia and Altaïr combined. Not original, but hey, what better examples are there. In looks he's more Prince than Altaïr, although I have a few minor twists in clothing and style, nothing earth-shattering though.

As a rogue I used the normal build first (lol stealthy pickpocket), then switched to the Martial Power build (aerialist build, lol flying death) because it better suited the image of a nimble assassin. In backstory: he's from a (DM approved) Arabic-style nation, bastard son of a sultan who was forced into the local assassin's guild but fled when he had the chance. He has all the skills, but doesn't have the true mentality of a killer without a conscience and doesn't wish to be one.

He's true neutral in the sense that he generally does good shit, but acknowledges that evil is sometimes necessary to accomplish goals that benefit the greater good. In that sense, when something nasty has to be done (the murdering of an innocent to save a whole bunch of people), my rogue will be the one that plays the martyr so the rest of my (good-aligned) party stays clean. They know about this in-game to a certain extent, but it always remains a suspicion that nobody cares to know more about - some things are better left in the shadows. The DM likes this and we frequently play these assassination missions outside regular sessions (or during, when the rest doesn't notice, meta-rogue lol).

Cont'd

>> No.9352174

>>9352138
Character A is derived from Character B is a fallacy.
Both are derived from the Archetypes.

>> No.9352178

>>9352167
Cont'd.

When it comes to personality, my rogue has two: the fast-talking acrobat and the killer-with-a-conscience. Those things are easily balanced because you can switch personalities depending on the job at hand without having a totally conflicted character. The happy acrobat can be the guy that cracks jokes to hide his own feelings of guilt and the darker side of his personality, that exists, but not because he wants to. The trick to making this work is to not make him an emo bastard ("baaaw I killed someone"), and instead of playing the 'I don't wanna talk about it' kinda guy, simply deny it happened at all. I'm a fast talker myself, so it's pretty easy for me to bullshit the rest of the group - it took them ages to find out my rogue's real identity even though the facts were on the table the whole time. Always roleplay according to your own social skills.

I hope this helps you to find your own rogue build OP, even though you may not play D&D but something else. This sounds a bit like 'oh look at my rogue lol I'm awesome', which it is because I'm proud of the rogue I've been playing for two years, but I thought that if I described all personality aspects to you it might help out. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

>> No.9352202

>>9352178
Two-post-guy here, I'm not saying my rogue is unique (e.g. second post in this topic, sorry dude), just wanted to help out ofcourse.

>> No.9352211

>>9352160
Wouldn't;
"My dick is about to objectify your wife"
work better?
Seems objectively better to me.

>> No.9352234

>>9352174

"The Magnificent Seven is derived from The Seven Samurai" is in no way a fallacious statement.

"All fourteen of these characters are derived from common archetypes" is a different statement which is also true. Nothing about it invalidates the first statement.

>> No.9352241

>>9352211
F5.

>> No.9352328

>Both are derived from the Archetypes.

The actual book the character appears in:
The Master List

The Archetype the Character represents:
A derivative from that master list.

No, you do not derivate the master list from a median and the idea that the Archetypes have been around before the works they've been derivated from's been written is very platonic.

>> No.9352368

>>9352234
The fact that all stories and all characters come from a single melting pot makes statement 1 moot.
Regardless of how one was exposed to the archetypal structures, your fiction is still derived from them.
Saying that one movie is homage to the other, saying one inspired the other, whatever.
My point is that all fiction is derivative, whether or not we are aware of the fact is irrelevant. Whether we latch onto the archetypes through other texts, or through or own imagination is also irrelevant. In both cases it is an awareness, subconscious or not, of the archetypes.

The fact is, these movies could have been create without input from the other. A trend in fiction need not show that all authors at that point are copying one another, simply that all are inspired by a particular surge in the zeitgeist, and so create congruent fiction.

That this is not the case for you two examples is also irrelevant. Both are archetypal constructs, in character and narrative, regardless of where the inspiration stems.

>> No.9352383

>>9352328

Yes, that's another flaw in his argument.

It's not wrong to say that characters are derived from archetypes, though. That's a valid way of looking at it. The problem comes from pretending that they can't ALSO be derived from other things (and from ignoring the fact that the archetypes are, in turn, derived from the characters).

All elements of literature can, to some degree, be viewed as derivative of the entire body of human literature.

>> No.9352420

>>9352328
>blah blah blah talking out my ass
The Archetypes predate sentience.
Their basis comes from ingrained survival instincts, which Jing referred to as the Collective Unconscious.
The Shadow for example is the primal fear of the predator.
The Wise Old Man is the elder or alpha of a group, showing the means to survive to new members of it's species.
Should I explain Anima/Animis as the nurutring parents who raise new species members, or would that be moot?

>> No.9352427

>>9352368
>The fact that all stories and all characters come from a single melting pot makes statement 1 moot.

This statement is untrue, and no amount of handwaving will make it true.

Your problem is that you think being derived from X means that something can't ALSO be derived from Y. Derivation is not a concrete, linear, or one-dimensional thing, and your talking of 'the big melting pot' leads me to believe that you have the capacity to understand this.

>> No.9352457

>>9352383
>>9352427
see here
>>9352420

the only flaw is on your part, not fully understanding Jung and the Archetypes.

Also, my typos. But I'm sure you can compensate.

>> No.9352475

>>9352457
Thought you were bending over for sure.

But then; >>I'm sure you can compensate.

Nice play. NICE PLAY.

>> No.9352569

>>9352420
>>9352457

The term "archetype" refers to a repetition of human literature. I am not interested in semantics right now, however; if you would like to define "archetype" in this way four our purposes then I'm game.

In which case it appears that you are saying that, say, The Joker is derived purely from instincts which predate sentience.

In other words, you are saying that he is NOT derived from Loki and Satan and Coyote and Raven and Dracula and Morgoth and Grendel, either directly OR indirectly, and that his concept springs only and exclusively from our collective unconscious.

>> No.9352628

>>9352569

It should also be noted that this view sounds quite incompatible with any references you have made to a "big melting pot".

This is why I stopped at the end there, welcoming you to clarify your position, rather than just going ahead and dismissing your view of literature as indefensible.

>> No.9352684

Thane Krios?

>> No.9352804

>The Archetypes predate sentience.

That is sort of terribly hard to proof, you know. I've read my fair share of primary literature about monomyths and I feel like pointing out that the method is always somebody collecting thousands and thousands of myths, cutting everything away they do not share and painting what remains signal red.

The method being used creates a derivated class which is useful but has lost its ability to meaningfully address what's actually happening within its individual source materials. Which nobody bothers to read because they've got those handy abstact classes now!

I've seen the same trick being performed both in "The Golden Bough" and "Nektar und Ambrosia" While one of them concludes that all religion is derived from killing a king, the other insists that all religion is at its core about people being ashamed about eating death gods.

I could probably write a third book that would be about how religion is actually about people being transformed into a higher state of being through food and sport and my theory would have as much merit as the two above. The source material is just that rich.

Which is why we're here where we stand with people complaining that everything is old already. Bitches need to get off their ass and read the source material.

>> No.9352914

>>9352569
The characters you mention spring from the collective unconscious construct of species knowledge we have labelled the Joker Archetype, yes.
>>9352628
The big melting pot is all the additional stuff, the pieces we have attached to the species knowledge and instincts by virtue of sentience.
>>9352804
I agree.
I'm not trying to bitch that everything is old already, simply stating that the idea of texts being derived from the archetypes is universal. And might I add, not to be condemned. Of course, we should read what has been done with these fundamental constructs, indeed we can enjoy literature on another level through awareness of archetypes, on as much a mechanical as emotional level. Sometimes the two can be difficult to reconcile, I admit, bit when you have a text you truly enjoy simplynas a page turner as much as a deconstructist exercise, you are on to a winner IMHO.

>> No.9352959

The Dexter concept is interesting, you could also skip the "urge to kill" bit and just go with a knifey Batman.

>> No.9352982

>>9352914
>The characters you mention spring from the collective unconscious construct of species knowledge we have labelled the Joker Archetype, yes.
>The big melting pot is all the additional stuff, the pieces we have attached to the species knowledge and instincts by virtue of sentience.

So am I misunderstanding you, or are you admitting that characters ARE derived from a vast complex of other characters, as WELL as being ultimately derived from the subconscious and ancient "archetype"?

>> No.9352996

To get REMOTELY BACK ON TOPIC, how about a character who is the incarnation of whichever jungian archetype covers crazy murderers?

>> No.9353162

>I'm not trying to bitch that everything is old already, simply stating that the idea of texts being derived from the archetypes is universal.

Well, yes, the idea is universal and universally wrong too. We only percieve them through texts after all, they are the derivative, not the texts they appear in.

'This is not claiming that Archetypes are useless or a bad idea, not at all. I find that jungian naturalistic interpretation you've posted most clarifying. It is honestly a great help to somebody who's not trying to loose sight of what he or she's aiming for with a character. Everything that would obstruct the view of what function a character within a given piece of literature fulfills has been cut away and we're now perfectly able to clearly trace what's happening when within the story. That's a good thing IMO. You don't get to appreciate the text in all its depth through the archetype, but a part that's significant enough to require some close monitoring will be conveniently highlighted.

The problem with the reverse-perspective, namely that texts derivate from archetypes, is basically what we're seeing here: People going: "Nah, that's an Archetype GIVE UP GIVE UP" instead of: "Yeah, that's the Archetype, what are you gonna do with it?"

>To get REMOTELY BACK ON TOPIC, how about a character who is the incarnation of whichever jungian archetype covers crazy murderers?

The Trickster? Because the Shadow just kills you death.

>> No.9353222

>>9353162
>Well, yes, the idea is universal and universally wrong too. We only percieve them through texts after all, they are the derivative, not the texts they appear in.

He is using archetypes to refer to elements of the collective unconscious (independent of the literary patterns which reflect those elements). See >>9352420


Just clarifying. Yes, the word archetype IS supposed to represent the patterns themselves and their repetition, but if you want to fight semantics with him you're on your own.

>> No.9353436

>He is using archetypes to refer to elements of the collective unconscious (independent of the literary patterns which reflect those elements).

That's faith, not semantic. I don't mind that he believes in platonic ideas, it's just that I've read the actual dialouge the notion is based on and found it a riot. 'S not much of a fundament we could talk about without being forced to share the same conviction.

>> No.9353477

>>9352982
The subconscious and ancient archetype is a framework.
Other ideas can be attached to it, of course.
But this does not alter the framework, merely build upon it.
>>9353162
yes.
>>9352996
both shadow and trickster, we can't ignore the fact an assassin is a murderer after all. The blend may be 60:40!in favour of trickster however.
>>9353222
>"Yeah, that's the Archetype, what are you gonna do with it?"
this so much.
My apologies if it's seemed at any point I'm some lazy post modernist saying "give up it's all the same shit"

>> No.9353504

>>9353436

No, it's not a platonic ideal, at least to my understand. I don't think it is a statement of faith to say that most villains or monsters in fiction can be traced back to early man's fear of the predator, for instance.

>> No.9353628

>>9353477
>The subconscious and ancient archetype is a framework.
>Other ideas can be attached to it, of course.
>But this does not alter the framework, merely build upon it.

I think that's a reasonable way to look at it. But you didn't actually answer my question.

It is wrong to say "The DC character The Joker is based on the ancient joker archetype, not on Morgoth or Loki or Coyote". Which is exactly what you were saying earlier in this thread, and how this argument got started.

Suppose I said "The Joker is based on the ancient concept of the trickster, and is also based on Loki who is based on the ancient concept of the trickster, and also based on Morgoth who is in turn based on Loki and also based on the ancient concept of the trickster..."
I believe that at this point you would not disagree with me here. And this was my initial point: derivation is very complex, and everything is ultimately based on everything else. The Magnificent Seven ARE derived from The Seven Samurai, in addition to the myriad other things which they can be viewed as deriving from.

Have we reached an understanding here, or am I jumping the gun?

>> No.9353657

"Yeh, I kill people for a living. It's a job, and just like you when i'm not working I have my hobbies, I do the shopping, I go to the pub on Saturday nights. No, I don't feel particulary bad about what I do, the kinda guys i get paid to kill? None of them arre innocent. Nobody hires an assassin to take out Mrs Goggins the little old lady who's nice to animals, gets a visit from the grand children every Sunday. I have my rule, too, I don't do children, or law enforcement. I don't kill anyone I'm not paid for, unless it's self defense."

>> No.9353667

Betrayed by his king and sold into slavery to silence his voice of dissent, the court jester plots against his kingdom.

>> No.9353677

rolled 64 = 64

>>9353667
Haha holy shit oh wow. This is awesome. Stealin' it.

>> No.9353814

>No, it's not a platonic ideal, at least to my understand.

The statement that a phenomenon of reality is an impure derivation of an idea existing in a supernatural state is platonic at its very core.

>I don't think it is a statement of faith to say that most villains or monsters in fiction can be traced back to early man's fear of the predator, for instance.

Oh, that's pretty hard to proof, really. I mean, there is no early man around anymore we could ask and as I've pointed out: The source material is very rich. If we simply ask we might recieve a favourable answer from the possible source material available to that early man. That's how reality is and that is why science should not about finding a definite answer to end everything but about working theories.

The last time we had a scientist trying to pry the secret truth from a primitive people we ended up with the Dogon-myth, which, upon a reading of the actual book Marcel Griaule wrote, turns out to be his projection.

>> No.9353872

>>9353667
Here's another, it's somewhat similar:

The old soldier had fought many battles in the name of his lord, watched many states fall against the might of his army. The beautiful new lands were given to the lord's portly, greedy, licentious and wine-drunk favorite children.
Now that his lord sleeps beneath the earth, the time has come to undo what he spent his life achieving.

>> No.9353899

>>9353814
>The statement that a phenomenon of reality is an impure derivation of an idea existing in a supernatural state is platonic at its very core.

I know. What I just said is that that isn't what he is saying. No one is discussing anything supernatural or metaphysical here.

>Oh, that's pretty hard to proof, really.

Yea, but nothing in this field of discussion is even remotely provable.

But I think it would be very silly to say that villains and killers in fiction AREN'T rooted in primeval man's fear of the predator, at least in some small way.

>> No.9353904

>It is wrong to say "The DC character The Joker is based on the ancient joker archetype, not on Morgoth or Loki or Coyote".
Here then is our fundamental disagreement.
On a personal level, I see DCS joker and by extension all it's versions and incarnations as the Paragon of The Trickster.
All of your mentioned characters are derived ultimately from The Trickster archetype, I don't debate that there are subtle additions as literture expands, or that authors can be inspired by other works.
My point is that all works, boil down to the archetypes. You may see Text X and thus us it to inspire Text Y but neither one exists in a vacuum, Text X is a blend of archetypes which may be inspired by earlier texts that are in turn a blend of archetypes add infinitum. The ultimate end therefore is that it all stems from the roots, the archetypes.
You seem to be asserting that simply by being unaware that your work is an archetypal hybrid, that it ceases to be so. And that from there should this magical unique construct inspire other works, they are similarly shielded from archetypal construction.
I find that baffling.

>> No.9353908

>>9351469
>This article has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
>It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since June 2008.
>It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since July 2008.

Oh gee, it's not like all the morons who don't get the self-insertion part could've edited this article!

>> No.9353951

>>9353814
>an idea existing in a supernatural state
You are saying that a species ingrained instincts from a time before sentience are a supernatural phenomenon?
Implanted by God perhaps to fool us that we evolved from lesser beasts?
Absurdity.

>> No.9353973

My assassin came from a giant city, where there are tons of people. The assassinations took place in crowds, and were powered by faith and the belief of doing good.

Since you don't have much room in crowds for any weaponary, his fighting style was dual shortswords, with some thrown knifes should anyone manage to pursuit him through the endless crowds.

So yeah, a crowd-assassin that believes in the greater good by sacraficing some. Isn't that hard to think off, right?

>> No.9353976

New thread:
>>9353926

>> No.9353997

>>9353904
>You seem to be asserting that simply by being unaware that your work is an archetypal hybrid, that it ceases to be so

I mean no disrespect when I say that, if this is your impression of my argument, then you have some serious issues in reading comprehension to look into. I have repeatedly and consistently stated the exact opposite of this.

Characters are derived from pre-literary archetypes AND from other characters. The Joker is based on Loki AND on the concept of the trickster. It is wrong to say that The Joker isn't derived in part from Loki, and it is also wrong to say that The Joker isn't derived in part from the trickster.

If a train passes through New York on its way to Boston, it is simply false to say "that train isn't going to New York". It's ultimately going to both places.

>> No.9354059

A guy who travels from place to place. When he encounters something he considers unjust, he stalks the guilty party, observing them, judging them. If he finds them wanting, he kills them, if not, then he leaves them a warning

>> No.9354088

Your station analogy is false, and not relevant.
All literary characters are derived from the archetypes.
That you fuse two archetypal blendings together does not make in any way the resultant character any less of an archetypal blending. Or indeed it's constituent parts any less archetypal blendings.

>> No.9354165

>>9354088
>Your station analogy is false, and not relevant.

The Joker is based on Loki who is in turn based on the trickster. Therefor, The Joker is based on both Loki and the trickster.

The train goes to New York and then goes from New York to Boston. Therefor, the train goes to both New York and Boston.


You've admitted several times that characters CAN be based on or informed by other characters. But then you assert that they are archetypical hybrids, as if this statement somehow invalidates the first statement ("The train can't go to New York because it's going to Boston").

It looks as though you've now grown unresponsive to reason and have made up your mind to repeat this fallacious assertion ('characters can't be based on other characters if they're based on archetypes') over and over until the discussion is over. Which is unfortunate. I generally avoid analogies for the confusion that they can cause, but I thought it might help in this case.

>> No.9354170

>>9353899
>No one is discussing anything supernatural or metaphysical here.
But we've been discussing the subconscious.

>> No.9354184

>>9354170

That's theoretical, not supernatural or metaphysical. Not the same thing. Freudian notions might be hooky but they aren't witchcraft.

>> No.9354229

>>9354184
Supernatural:
>not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

I'd say subconsciousness fits pretty damn well under the definition.

>> No.9354242

>>9354088
Are you "special"?

>> No.9354255

>>9354229

It doesn't. The subconscious is a consequence of psycho-chemical processes just like everything else our brains cook up.

Next you'll be saying that love and hate are supernatural.

>> No.9354263

>>9354184
Jungian, not Freudian.

And train guy,
New York doesn't CREATE Boston
The Archetypes do create all characters.
It's nothing to do with progressing from A to B, and trying to simplify it in such a manner is not simply showing a lack of understanding on your part, but a continued attempt at subterfuge and deceit.

>> No.9354291

>>9354242
Are you unable to grasp simple ideas?

>> No.9354299

>>9354242

A lot of people on /tg/ are very intelligent individuals with mild social or learning disorders.

Eventually you stop making fun of them for it and just accept it. If this guy eventually concedes that American Maid can possibly be described as derivative of Wonder Woman, hey, awesome. If not, it's not the end of the world, and maybe (once he's done turtling) he'll think it over more later.

Either way, I *do* enjoy discussing this sort of thing.

>> No.9354317

>>9354299
>vaguely vieled insults are better than logic.

>> No.9354338

>>9354263
New York didn't create Boston, no. And The Joker does not go to Loki. But the same kind of reasoning applies in both cases.

The trickster created Loki. Loki and the trickster (among other things) both created The Joker.

Likewise, the train travels from New York to Boston. New York and Boston are both destinations of said train.

That's how analogies work.

>> No.9354365

>>9354291
Character Y is derived from Archetype X. Character Z is derived from Character Y. Character Z is also derived from Character Y. That's what the other guy was arguing the whole time, you never answered him directly but you keep implying that it doesn't matter either way and is redundant, which is fucking bullshit.

So, I'm asking, are you just being stubborn not wanting to "lose" an argument by admitting that a character can be derived from another character (which is NOT redundant: Archetypes speak only about some basic qualities about a character, deriving a character from a character set in a canon can mean deriving other things also, as is the case with the Magnificent Seven which was brought up by you people earlier), or are you a moron?

>> No.9354375

>>9354263

The notion of the personal subconscious is freudian (though he said unconscious, not subconscious).

The notion of a collective subconscious simply describes the complex relationship between many personal subconsciousnesses.

>> No.9354425

>>9354365

He's not a moron. Conceptual duality can be really hard to grasp; the basic human reflex is to think "if it works this way then it can't also work that way too".

And I think he would be using very different tactics if he saw what we were saying and just wanted to weasel his way out of the argument.

>> No.9354434

HOLY SHIT THIS THREAD STARTED OUT COOL AND NOW YOU SEMANTICS-FAGS ARE RUINING EVERYTHING.

I HATE THIS FAMILY. I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN.

>> No.9354447

Assassin concepts moved to another thread, you know.

Screw you, I can talk about obscure and irrelevant literary theories on /tg/ if I want to. Get off my lawn.

>> No.9354458

>>9354425
Idunno, I think he might be a little butthurt that his Jung namedrop didn't win him the argument.

An hour and a half on wikipedia, totally wasted.

>> No.9354461

>>9354447

BECAUSE YOU DROVE IT OUT OF ITS OWN THREAD, YOU COLLOSSAL FAGGOT.

I HATE YOU SO GODDAMN MUCH

>> No.9354467

ITT, like in all threads, a simple question becomes a study in the different perspectives of mortality and degrades into a bitching match between people arguing over the supremacy of their preferences.

This is alignment: lol-human.

>> No.9354469

I've got an assassin character who comes from a family of assassins.

He's a damn good shot, but his dad still pushes him to be better, never showing him much affection whilst his mother tries to assure him that his dad loves him, yet the son constantly fights for his dad's love.

By night he does assassination jobs, each riskier than the last, by day he attends high school with his geeky friends and equally geeky girlfriend who he constantly has to postpone doing things with thanks to his job.

Is that a good assassin character?

>> No.9354470

>>9354425
It's not a difficult concept. I don't know a single post-teen person who wouldn't grasp this.

>> No.9354493

rolled 62 = 62

Play the Count of Monte Cristo. Be made of win and epic, involved, multiple-personality-crisis-causing Xanatos gambits. Also, fencing and murder.

>> No.9354509

An assassin that sees every kill as an intellectual challenge can be interesting. Don't necessarilly have to make it emotionless or even detached; hell make the killer enthusiastic about it.

The outcome isn't important, the method is.

>> No.9354521

>>9354470
>>9354470

Well, okay, this specific example is a little ridiculous.

But how many people have you known who don't really try to address emotional issues on a social or personal level because "it's all just chemicals in your head"? Or who do the opposite, never intellectualizing anything, and acting like you're dismissing the importance of their feelings if you suggest that maybe they just need to get more sleep.

>> No.9354527

>I know. What I just said is that that isn't what he is saying. No one is discussing anything supernatural or metaphysical here.

Jungian Archetypes are both supernatural and metaphysical though. You'd be cutting into his theory something fierce if you'd deny that completely.

>Yea, but nothing in this field of discussion is even remotely provable.

Oh, but I did offer concret examples on how monomyths are created and I linked that to the creation of the jungian archetypes. Jung simply is less pedantic with listing his sources than the books I've mentioned but the method of Information aggregation and -reduction is the same.
You can look those books up yourself and see if I'm correct but it's awfully hard for both me and you to grab us an anicent man and grill him with questions or tap into the collective unconscious.

>But I think it would be very silly to say that villains and killers in fiction AREN'T rooted in primeval man's fear of the predator, at least in some small way.

I can't denie that, because it seems to make sense. But really, "It makes sense" is something a scholar can say with some certainity and he still might be wrong.

>> No.9354546

My gf plays an assassin character who's forced into the job by a dragon. She hates having to kill people, but she doesn't have much of a choice in the matter.

>> No.9354561

>>9354527

>> No.9354599

>Jungian Archetypes are both supernatural and metaphysical though. You'd be cutting into his theory something fierce if you'd deny that completely.

I've tried to restrict my arguments to things which the guy who brought up Jungian archetypes has himself brought to the table. Criticizing Jung's ideas isn't the same as criticizing anon, after all.

Admittedly, I'm NOT very familiar with Jung anyway, so maybe I've misunderstood him for lack of context.

>Oh, but I did offer concret examples on how monomyths are created and I linked that to the creation of the jungian archetypes. Jung simply is less pedantic with listing his sources than the books I've mentioned but the method of Information aggregation and -reduction is the same.
>You can look those books up yourself and see if I'm correct but it's awfully hard for both me and you to grab us an anicent man and grill him with questions or tap into the collective unconscious.

That's all reason. And it's very reasonable reason, that doesn't make it "proof".

This sort of discussion is about appeals to sensibility. And you can back those appeals up with more reason, which is what you've done, but you one could also do the same by pointing out ways in which various classical villains look or act like predators.

Do note that I'm not trying to pull some LOL ALL SUBJECTIVE argument here, just saying that there are few times when it is meaningful to ask for "proof" in a discussion of literary theory. Lit isn't a science and it never will be, there's just no getting around it.

>> No.9354602

fewer murderers, more assassins.

how about a regionally-renowned brewer or vintner who'll present your noble enemy with a very special beverage?

>> No.9354621

>>9354338
>among other things
YOU MEAN THE ARCHETYPES!?
THAT INFORM IDEAS COMING FROM COUNTLESS SOURCES ALL INFORMING THE CREATOR OF A GIVEN CHARACTER IN A SPIDERWEB OF MEMES!?
NOT JUST A FUCKING
STRAIGHT
LINE
PROGRESSION!?!?

IT'S ALMOST AS THOUGH IDEAS
DON'T
WORK
THAT
WAY
YOU COLOSSAL FUCKING TWAT!!!

>> No.9354709

>>9354621

Would you feel better if I described a vast spiderweb of trains, all leaving a given city and eventually reaching New York, then traveling on to other cities? I get the feeling that you actually wouldn't but very well.

>New York and Boston (among other places) are both destinations of the train.

There we go, analogy fixed. Not that that's more than a distraction, mind you; the analogy doesn't have to hold up for me to be right.

Loki informs the Joker. The trickster archetype informs both Loki and The Joker. I've said this like twenty times now, and I think there's a reason you haven't tried to contradict me.

>> No.9354745

Play slightly "insane" with the simple idea that every person you kill raises your own odds of survival in either the short or long term.

>> No.9354772

>That's all reason. And it's very reasonable reason, that doesn't make it "proof".

Well yes, that's to be expected when discussing the origin of abstract concepts.

>This sort of discussion is about appeals to sensibility. And you can back those appeals up with more reason, which is what you've done, but you one could also do the same by pointing out ways in which various classical villains look or act like predators.

Hmm...they would really not end up acting more like our image of a predator than like any actual animal, I believe. There simply aren't that many animals who would hunt humans with some regularity allowing that comparison to begin with. I mean besides gnats and the likes.

>> No.9354814

>>9354621
You're missing the entire point, though.

The Archetype is essentially the foundation of a character and its motivations. Then you have layers above that, describing more character traits (such as being charismatic, liking blond men, having some ticks), physical attributes (looks, size, prone to disease to name a few) and background (where from, what does character do for a living and so forth).

If I think of a character that derives from character X, I will obviously derive from the archetype that is the foundation of that character. This is inevitable.

I will, however, also derive from character X. If I borrow various traits and attributes that obviously do not come from the archetype, but are traits and attributes that character X has, I will be deriving from character X as well as the archetype.

Are you denying this to be true?

>> No.9354848

Non-evil assassins are best pulled off in DH, I think. I myself have a real liking for them.

What I usually play them as are men and women who just think of killing another human for money as any other profession. Emprah knows they probably deserve it anyway for becoming a target in the first place. A broody and OMG SO EVUL assassin in DH is just a character gone wrong.

One assassin I had was this slightly insane assassin who used his profession mostly to dick around with his NOBLE and PUREBRIGHT party of acolytes, such as making them dinner, using the same knife to prep the food as he used to jab into heretical jugulars. It led to some... interesting party confrontations.

What I'm trying to say is that assassins in Dark Heresy is just another profession, because the setting is so grimdark already. Killing a man for your own benefit isn't an atrocity there. You can also throw in some Thane-dickery there, where the assassin is no more to blame for a mans' death than the gun in your hand is. But I think that's a cheap way out.

>> No.9354928

>The Archetype is essentially the foundation of a character and its motivations.

I dunno, The Wise Old Man does not actually need a reason to be The Wise Old Man. That's just his very nature. The Hero does not have to kill the evil man-eating capitalist because he's socialist, it's just that he's the hero and the other dude is his antagonist.

An archetype dictates how somebody acts vice versa other characters, but there is nore motivation neither reason to it. They aren't characters, they're types.

>> No.9355045

>>9354928
Yes, the word "motivation" was ill-picked. Agreed.

>> No.9355070

The Whistler.

Doesn't like working as an assassin. In truth, he doesn't really like working period. On the other hand, if you're good enough (he is) being an assassin pays well enough that he doesn't have to work very often.

>> No.9355132

>>9355070
Sounds like Ripley in Ripley's Game.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action