For RPing, do you like for your characters to fit in with the stereotypes of different classes, races, etc.? Or do you like to completely mix it up by having them be the complete opposite of what one would expect for a given Job, race, etc.?
My character Miranda is a Summoner, formerly Arcanist. And personally, I would say she does not really fit the stereotype of that class. While she is quite intelligent and has an intellectual streak, compared to Arcanists like Foreseer K'lyhia, Miranda is actually much more emotionally tuned than logically tuned, very introspective, and so forth, even if she doesn't really show it much outwardly - which would suggest she would find Thaumaturgy and Conjury much easier to learn overall.
So why'd she choose to learn Arcanima? Well personally, I have always felt that there are more than a few reasons to believe that the Padjali are not nearly as benevolent as they may seem. A long time ago I remember Sounssy wrote an incredibly detailed post explaining Thaumaturges' connections with Ul'dah & Nald'thal (taken from 1.0's lore) in an attempt to debunk the myths that THM was less nation-locked than CNJ owing to being fueled by introspection.
When you're an Adventurer who is used to being dismissed as a pathetic lowlife who has likely failed at getting a higher-paying job and therefore is looking for Adventuring as a way of making money (as Ul'dahn elites do), or having it made very clear that you are not trusted and are one slip-up away from the stake (as the Wildwood Elezen of Gridania do), a little respect goes a long way - the side job at Malvaan's Gate, in Miranda's eyes, was vastly superior to wandering around doing menial tasks and being looked down upon by the very same people she was trying to help - and Master Thubyrgeim proved to be a very affable teacher who was willing to work closely with Miranda and make sure that she understood the complex science and math behind this newly discovered magic art.
And later on, after Miranda had joined the Scions, learned that these strange visions of a Crystal and flashbacks was in fact a holy ability, faced Ifrit, and become skilled enough in Arcanima to even consider picking up the Summoner Soul Crystal, she was eager to jump at the opportunity because not only was it a continuation of what the Allagan Summoners had done (using the power of the Primals against them), but a big part of her felt that summoning mini-Primals through channeling their unique elementally-aspected aether was a great way to stick it to the religious Ul'dahn and Gridanian elites.
In short, Miranda felt the Arcanist's Guild cared about her (and the rest of its students), while the other two magic Guilds, for the most part, did not.
Personally, I'll typically explore both sides of stereotypes within any given universe. I'll typically make my initial "main" character a pretty simple, prototypical protagonist (leaning towards lawful good) that doesn't stray particularly far from what you might expect from them in regards to race, class, social status, etc.
The good thing about using stereotypes in character creation is that your character really feels like it belongs in the world. I'm not advocating making the blandest character possible (because you can make a really unique, compelling character, while still falling into the stereotypical character), but I like making a character that I feel won't have any problems fitting in. The other good thing about sticking "inside the lines" is that you rarely have to worry about stepping on people's toes and getting anyone riled up, which can happen if you're RPing anything that's too weird. I typically use that first more stereotypical character to learn as much as I can about the world so that when I'm ready to start bending and breaking stereotypes with a later alt character that I make, I can do it in an intelligent way that makes sense.
As a side note, I like to also always have one alt that's basically just a fun, silly comic relief character. Playing a super serious do-gooder or do-evil...er(?) can get kind of tiresome, and so when I feel like I'm in a rut, I can just blow off some steam and have fun with my silly character.
I'm boring. I like stereotypes who we get in lore. Not the ones roleplayer create.
I like fitting into the job/class/race/clan's story as much as I can, so I don't get issues later on with lore and have to either retire, retcon or kill off the character. Because I like playing by the 'rulebook'.
But stereotypes being roleplayed on Balmung is rare, so I suppose that makes my characters special again.
(02-21-2017, 07:14 PM)Virella Wrote: [ -> ]I'm boring. I like stereotypes who we get in lore. Not the ones roleplayer create.
I like fitting into the job/class/race/clan's story as much as I can, so I don't get issues later on with lore and have to either retire, retcon or kill off the character. Because I like playing by the 'rulebook'.
But stereotypes being roleplayed on Balmung is rare, so I suppose that makes my characters special again.
FFF yesssss this.
I guess I did both, when I originally heard about the game. the descriptions of the duskwight elezen made me think they could become their own thing, yet still be in a city, like the everquest 1 factions. turns out I was wrong, they were a minority, and oppressed, and even more minority and oppressed in 2.0. So I took to a character that basically watched where she walked, and who feared getting in trouble with the law, because as a duskwight, she knew she had no privilege, and few chances.
Cue her becoming an atypical dark knight.
Despite learning the ways of the dark knight, she is fairly easygoing and friendly, willing to help when she can as an adventurer. Yet she chose a life of fighting, and a path that may see her living like her parents, even if not the same trade... She isn't mired in problems regarding controlling her abilities so much as dealing with knowing when and how to "take the law into her own hands". Whether its stopping a fight between friends, meeting a fence for a shady deal, or smashing a bottle over a portly merchant's head for someone to interrogate about a cult.
Broadly speaking, every character of mine is based on the relevant stereotypes (i.e. Limsa is for pirates, Ul'dah is for selfish rich bastards, Gridania is for...well, it's not for a steakhouse at the least). I tend to use it as a jumping-off point for my characters.
As for specifically going for or against stereotypes, I consciously try to avoid that. Writing a character just for the sake of being contrarian or adherent to a stereotype can be sort of interesting, but I don't find it particularly compelling because people are fairly complex. As humans we have an instinctive need to categorise and sort--call it leftover tribal instincts or what have you--so this kind of thing is inevitable, but stereotypes, whether you're going against or with them, should really only be used as a foundation and nothing else.
I think about what kind of story I want to write and construct the character based around that, determining how their background and the setting elements influence them beforehand. I may place the character in the culture or location within the setting that most easily facilitates what I want to write. I don't believe in deliberately sticking to or going against stereotypes that exist within a setting; if my character does or does not conform to expectations, the result is always coincidental. Trends among other RPers don't have anything to do with me so I disregard them, whether they err towards following stereotypes or eschewing them.
My characters tend to be pretty big stereotypes~ but I like them.
I think stereotypes are useful and I usually adhere to them for familiarity's sake, though I sometimes subvert lesser ones.
I think if I had to create a character all over again, I'd probably follow lore more closely. When I created Alothia, there wasn't really any lore to speak of for Miqo'te, so I just went with the flow. Â WHen 2.0 rolled out, I didn't feel like retconning her entire story, so I ended up molding her backstory to fit what I had created. Â So she's not lore breaking, but she's not a stereotype either.
I think it's more a matter of terminology here. Whether you're following a "stereotype" or an "archetype." I think the terms are both kind of being used interchangeably in this situation, but stereotype has a negative connotation affixed to it due to common modern usage of the word. So I'll stick to using the term archetype instead.
There is nothing wrong with using an archetype as a base for your character. After all, the reason archetypes exist is because they are something people can readily recognize and identify, and most characters already existent in all forms of media can be described using archetypes. A lot of groundwork is laid out for you already by utilizing them, leaving you to only have to put your own unique flavor or spin on it.
And even when you're subverting an archetype, you're still using that archetype as a point of reference. So, in a sense, you're still using it and its base familiarity... just as the character "not" being those things. And some of those are their own archetypes as well, such as the Antihero or the Villain as compared to the Hero - if I may use some of the broader archetypes.
So, I can't quite say I personally seek to use or circumvent them. I just end up with character ideas and play them out, seeing where they go. Sometimes they align neatly with archetypes, sometimes they subvert them. I have no real particular preference.
I like to balance on the middle. Taking a bit from stereotypes and throw in something original.
On the outside, my characters can appear rather stereotypical... the rowdy rogue from Limsa who likes to drink and sleep around, or the schooled arcanist from a rich family who seems to be somewhat arrogant in his approach... but dig deeper, get to know them, and they're actually quite different than what they appear to be.
I'm not doing good with pure stereotypes... especially not amongst the gay community. There's alot of assumptions going on there, and most people play already cookie-cutter roles. Like the twinky miqo'te is the submissive slut, or the big tough roe is the dominant brute. And people expect you to be these things just looking at what race you've chosen. And if you're not playing one of those stereotypes, I have seen people turn their backs on you because of it.
That's why whenever we see a male miqo'te called "Tia" as last name, people have already jumped to the conclusion that he's a gay slut who walks around in the Coeurl thong, trying to bait guys into ERP. Because that's what ALOT of them are! Or at least a good portion of it, because that's a role that's popular in the gay community. Same with female Roegadyns... they are automatically seen as lesbian futas, because that's the popular race to be if you are playing one such.
It is important to note, that it is not always the case though!
So when I find someone who breaks the stereotypes and shows they are more, they are something else, they have some originality in them... those people are what catches my interest and intrigues me.
I suppose I'd say I use a mix of going with and against stereotypes to create something that feels unique, yet is also rooted somewhat in what people may expect -- both in and out of universe. However... I'm not sure how much weight that holds when it comes to certain jobs/races/etc. that we still don't have definite, one-way answers on. (Like the long-debated "tribal vs city Miqo'te" matter, for example.)
(02-22-2017, 10:25 AM)Gegenji Wrote: [ -> ]I think it's more a matter of terminology here. Whether you're following a "stereotype" or an "archetype." I think the terms are both kind of being used interchangeably in this situation, but stereotype has a negative connotation affixed to it due to common modern usage of the word. So I'll stick to using the term archetype instead.
...And then a bunch of other good stuff was said.
Building on this, I'm fond of the saying that "you need to know the rules before you can break them." Nothing, art least of all, is created in a vacuum, and even if you try to actively break from archetypes, you'll still inevitably end up playing into one to some degree. I find starting with an archetype as a rough skeleton is a perfectly acceptable, if not desirable, course. As you put some meat on the bones, you find inspiration and follow ideas to their logical conclusions, and the archetype gets tweaked, added to, and taken away from until eventually it isn't really recognizable. Then, bam, you get a character in the vein of what Gegenji's talking about.
(02-22-2017, 10:47 AM)Ethanial Levinstrike Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not doing good with pure stereotypes... especially not amongst the gay community. There's alot of assumptions going on there, and most people play already cookie-cutter roles. Like the twinky miqo'te is the submissive slut, or the big tough roe is the dominant brute. And people expect you to be these things just looking at what race you've chosen. And if you're not playing one of those stereotypes, I have seen people turn their backs on you because of it.
:l Is that really a thing? Do people legit get that mad about not wanting to RP some gross offensive stereotype?
Balmung. What.