Stereotypes

[Fiery Justice]

Alright, so I've been thinking about trying to make new characters and make them interesting, trying to find interesting characters. And I ran into a problem: Stereotypes. There is no way to avoid them being applied to a character. The most promininent example is a non-evil (or heck, anti-matriachry) drow. There stands Driz'zt and cries of Driz'zt's clone. It matters not if your character grew up among elves and is an orthodox worshipper of Corellon or is planning a war of vengeance against his mother while paying homage to Vhaerun, it doesn't matter if your character is a sorcerer, a thief, or an officer in the elven military. All that matters is that your drow isn't a devout worshipper of Lolth from one of the underdark cities. And that is just most prominent example you might run into.

So my question is, is it possible to avoid being stereotyped in such a way (besides switching DMs until you find a sympathetic one)? And, as a corelated question, how much originality is needed to justify a character from not simply being a rip off of another character?

P.S. This thread isn't really meant to focus on Drow, I was just raising the question in a way familiar to most of us.

[kamikasei]

So my question is, is it possible to avoid being stereotyped in such a way (besides switching DMs until you find a sympathetic one)?

If your DM is in fact telling you you can't play a character because he thinks it's just an iteration of some stereotype he dislikes - and is dismissing all your ideas this way, and won't give you a chance to play the character as itself and show that it's not a stereotype or ripoff - then yeah, I would say your best bet is leaving that DM to rot by himself.

edit: And on the other hand, if all you're worried about is being made fun of, just suck it up and play the character and either the players/DM will mock you endlessly to the point you can't enjoy the game (if they're jerks and/or if your character really is awful) or you'll prove it's not a stereotype and they'll lay off anything beyond playful ribbing.

[Saph]

So my question is, is it possible to avoid being stereotyped in such a way (besides switching DMs until you find a sympathetic one)? And, as a corelated question, how much originality is needed to justify a character from not simply being a rip off of another character?

I think you're worrying waaaay too much about this. Who cares if the other players make jokes about your character being a Drizzt rip-off? They make a few jokes about Drizzt Clone No. 58749, your character joins the party, and in sixty seconds everyone but you has forgotten about it.

If you really enjoy playing a character, and make an effort to do it well, then in my experience no-one cares if he or she is a rip-off or not. Sure, other players may make fun of you, but that's all part of the game. Being stereotyped won't kill you. :)

- Saph

[Wyvern_55]

I've never really worried about this myself, if you want to be a drow, then 90% of the time you will have to be some sort of rebel drow, (in order to go on adventures with non-drow) just because you share a quality or two doesn't make you an automatic rip-off. Just like not every human ranger is an Aragorn rip-off. I have a character that I realized after the fact that is basically exactly like a LN Belkar with short swords mechanically, but if you had them in the same room they are so very different from one another personality-wise that you would never see it unless I brought it up.

[Fiery Justice]

If your DM is in fact telling you you can't play a character because he thinks it's just an iteration of some stereotype he dislikes - and is dismissing all your ideas this way, and won't give you a chance to play the character as itself and show that it's not a stereotype or ripoff - then yeah, I would say your best bet is leaving that DM to rot by himself.

Okay, firstly I don't even have a game right now so though concern is a purely academic one (I've encountered such biases before, so the ideas that swhirl about in my head for characters are generally checked by such things), and secondly lets stop and talk about the many reasons why ditching shouldn't be the primary option of dealing with gaming problems (which many people seem to think that it is.)
Firstly, and foremostly, leaving a group normally means leaving ones friends. Thats no fun and most solutions should be preferable to such.
Secondly, the limitation isn't a concentrated effort of malice.
Thirdly, one might well enjoy the game inspite of the limitation. The game master is not being villanious or unduly cruel. Its a limitation thats not crippling to the fun.

In effect the price of staying in the game is not equal the cost of leaving it. A rarely thought of consideration in many threads.

[Lord Tataraus]

As others have said, yes some players will mock you and badger you about playing a stereotypical character, you just need to move to a different group or play it differently. Personally, I don't mind stereotypical characters as long as they fit the setting. This can be seen as anti-stereotypes when it comes to things like CG Drow. In my settings there would never be a CG Drow, the society just makes it impossible. I've seen a number of players try to make characters that are impossible in the given setting and then complain when I say no and claim I just like stereotypical characters or something along those lines which is not true, I go from what makes sense in-game.

[kamikasei]

ets stop and talk about the many reasons why ditching shouldn't be the primary option of dealing with gaming problems (which many people seem to think that it is.)

I don't think it is, but I do think preemptively trying to make your characters proof against unreasonable accusations of unoriginality is pointless. If a DM is unwilling to let a player use his idea because, essentially, he thinks the player can't do it properly (as opposed to all the other reasons a DM might veto an idea: power level, fitness for the campaign, etc.) and he can't be reasoned with on this point, that to me seems an issue of trust and consideration that represents a fundamental block to the ability to enjoy gaming together.

I don't think ditching should be your primary option in any situation that wouldn't make you walk out on any other social occasion (violence, abuse, that sort of thing). I do think that if you have a genuine problem with the DM's behaviour, and normal means of dealing with problems between people in a social context don't work (as in, you of course talk things out first), then either you have to be willing to leave or you put up with it. If you are willing to put up with it, then of course you shouldn't leave. I'm assuming that it is a real issue for you.

[VerdugoExplode]

Well, in playing the devils advocate, I would like to know just what kind of character you were going to make. There's a world of difference between non-evil drow and non-evil, dual wielding, drow with a panther companion and a deep dark history which causes him to feel angst on at least an hourly basis. If your DM is declaring that the former is a stereotype he may be overgeneralizing, a lot. If its the latter, well, he may have a somewhat valid point.

[valadil]

I usually play humans for this reason. I find that as a human character I'm not confronted by so many stereotypes whether I emulate or oppose them.

I've got a blog post (http://gm.thuranni.net/?p=11) regarding creativity as a GM. It's not quite the same thing, but I think what I discussed applies here. Basically there are very few premises available. Most of them have been covered before. But when you include events leading up to your premise and the direction your premise takes, the idea as a whole may be unique even if the premise itself wasn't.

If the stereotype is well known, why not confront it? Play a non evil drow who goes around complaining that there are plenty of you guys, but Drizz't gets all the credit. And how come everyone asks if he knows Drizz't personally. Just because they're both drow doesn't mean they hang out together. By reacting to and acknowledging Drizz't you can play an angsty non evil drow who isn't at all like Drizz't*.

* I haven't read FR books so I don't actually know what Drizz't is like aside from him being a non evil angsty drow who dual wields scimitars.

[Toliudar]

Everyone starts off with an impression of the other characters as stereotypes. Oh, a dwarf with an axe - he must drink ale and speak with a Scottish accent. Oh, a tall skinny unarmoured guy - must be the wizard. These are game cliches, and only time and a series of choices made by the players will shift you out of them. Patience, grasshopper. Unless the DM is actually preventing a character from entering a game - and that doesn't seem to be the scenario you're describing - it's not a problem.

Now, if the choices you make fail to distance you from the stereotype...that's a more complicated problem.

[Nohwl]

ive had a player(the dms "advisor") complain when i tried to have my rogue dual wield bastard swords. (i didnt have enough money to get masterwork ones and call them katanas.) he claimed dual wielding bastard swords was overpowered and that no rogue would ever use them. he won and forced me to use something more appropriate for a rogue. i killed the character and played something else i wanted to at the first opportunity i had.

[Prometheus]

A lot of characters get their depth from tried and true stereotypes, or if you prefer, archetypes. If you were only concerned with making a character that was designed to be completely free of stereotypes, you would end up with a character that doesn't make much sense at all. I can understand the need for originality, but you have to understand that the most original characters can usually be seen as a combination between the flatter stereotypes. TV tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HomePage) makes a good list of them, and some of my favorite shows fall right into it.

[bosssmiley]

Quickest way to avoid stereotype: subvert expectations by doing the opposite of the cliché. It worked for Michael Moorc0ck when he got sick of Conan clones. :smallwink:

@v: Then you subvert the subversion. :smallbiggrin:

[RPGuru1331]

The subversions can often be just as trite. That's why the OP is in trouble.

[Piedmon_Sama]

There's nothing wrong with playing a stereotype, I'd say. It's not going to be the most memorable character ever, maybe, but if you're not a Junior Novelist or an Aspiring Actor and roleplaying doesn't come naturally, then just taking Drizzt or Gimli as your models works fine. It's better your character have some consistent personality than be a Brilliant Work of Living Art.

Also, you can get some pretty memorable and offbeat characters if you take the stereotype as a starting point, then just look more closely at it and start asking yourself why your character acts that way. How much of an Elf or Dwarf's behavior is due to their innate "Elf-ness," or "Dwarf-ness" and how much is culturally enforced? How do they feel about that culture, and why have they chosen to move out of it and adventure abroad? (You don't have to always be The Rebel; imagine an Elf Wizard who travels to prove the superiority of his Arcane Schooling, or a Dwarf Cleric who believes human culture would be better off worshipping Moradin).


Instead of doing something antithetical and awkward like an Elf Barbarian or a Half-Orc Wizard*, take the standard archetype---Elf Wizard, Orc Barbarian--and go from there. Using their stats as a springboard can help. What makes your Elf Wizard different from every other Elf Wizard? Maybe he's brilliant at learning spells (Int 16) but so bad at poetry (Cha 8) that he can't make any friends in the Elf Village. Maybe your Half-Orc Barbarian is smart--too smart (Int 11/12) and got kicked out of his clan for always second-guessing the Chief, or questioning the Annual Mud Dance.


*And this is coming from someone who once played a Half-Orc Wizard, and justified it by saying there was actually a whole order of Orcish Wizards existant for centuries. They remained unknown to the civilized peoples because in appearance they were indistinguishable from ordinary shamans.

[AmberVael]

There is a reason things are cliche- people LIKED the idea. Unfortunately, cliches and stereotypes have a negative connotation to them as well, because it typically implies a ton of people using it who really shouldn't be trying to work with such a concept.

However, done correctly, a stereotypical character, or one based off of a cliche, can still be very well done and interesting. As long as you don't shackle them down completely with stereotypes and cliches, and allow the character a little bit of free reign and differences, it shouldn't be a problem.
If done right.

[Ulti]

Most of the characters i've played were pretty stereotypical- the trick is to play them so awesomely that nobody cares you're typical cleric who puts his God before all, or the typical "treasure kekeekekekeke" rogue, etc.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Wouldn't an Evil anti-Matriarchy drow be a Jarlaxle clone? Or do you have to be FABULOUS to qualify for that?

Also, he might have been CN. It's been a while since I read any Drizzt stuff.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Jarlaxle wasn't really anti-matriarchy; he just left and set up his mercenary company outside of Menzoberranzan instead of dealing with their BS. I've never seen any canon characters in the Dark Elf books who actively fought for male supremacy or egality... seems like an obvious idea though.

[arguskos]

Wouldn't an Evil anti-Matriarchy drow be a Jarlaxle clone? Or do you have to be FABULOUS to qualify for that?

Also, he might have been CN. It's been a while since I read any Drizzt stuff.
Pretty sure that the idea of Jarlaxle as "omg, FABULOUS!!" is the most amusing thought I've had all day. Thank you, for that wonderful mental image (male drow being all Valley Girl-esque and stuff). :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Thane of Fife]

I've never seen any canon characters in the Dark Elf books who actively fought for male supremacy or egality... seems like an obvious idea though.

Elaine Cunningham has written some up in her Liriel Baenre books. I think they were worshippers of Vhaeraun (sp?).

I believe similarly-minded Drow play a large part in the War of the Spider-Queen books.

[Ravyn]

Even playing to what would appear to be a stereotype can be turned new and interesting if you think long and hard enough about the reasons for it. I once played with the concept in dwarven society: Started by figuring out what the stereotypes were (http://exchangeofrealities.today.com/2008/08/12/iron-chef-world-builder-subverting-cliche/), then looked for things (http://exchangeofrealities.today.com/2008/08/13/iron-chef-world-builder-a-creation-process/) that could spring from the stereotype that hadn't been done before, then finished up by delivering my results (http://exchangeofrealities.today.com/2008/08/14/iron-chef-world-builder-finished-product-sample/). Granted, I was dealing with entire societies at once, but the point still stands.

The thing about stereotypes is that they're, in a way, shorthand. The problem that comes up is people attempting to define their concepts by the stereotypical qualities, as opposed to having concepts that just happen to have said qualities along with a number of other features, or ones for whom the reason for said qualities isn't because they're [fill in the race/class they're representing here], but because of this factor and that factor that come together in such a way that it wouldn't make sense for them to be any other way. If you can manage to keep your characters in the second or third category, then there might be a little laughing at the beginning--there always is--but by the time it's through it's going to be pretty clear that what they're dealing with isn't Clone #46, and they'll shut up.

[kjones]

ive had a player(the dms "advisor") complain when i tried to have my rogue dual wield bastard swords. (i didnt have enough money to get masterwork ones and call them katanas.) he claimed dual wielding bastard swords was overpowered and that no rogue would ever use them. he won and forced me to use something more appropriate for a rogue. i killed the character and played something else i wanted to at the first opportunity i had.

The "advisor" was doing you a favor, regardless of whether or not he realized it. A Medium-sized character dual-wielding bastard swords won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn. And good luck sneaking around with two 4-foot blades hanging off your belt...

But, you seriously suicided your character because your DM wouldn't let you dual-wield bastard swords?

[MeklorIlavator]

The "advisor" was doing you a favor, regardless of whether or not he realized it. A Medium-sized character dual-wielding bastard swords won't be able to hit the broad side of a barn. And good luck sneaking around with two 4-foot blades hanging off your belt...

But, you seriously suicided your character because your DM wouldn't let you dual-wield bastard swords?

Actually, with Oversized Two Weapon fighting(Comp Adv), it would be just like Dual Wielding anything else.

[Nohwl]

i had oversized two weapon fighting. and it was a low power campaign.

i didnt get to pick a few other things either. (the dms advisor picked for me, apparently im incapable of choosing what i want to be. everyone else got to choose without his interference.)

the dm(he just started learning to dm) originally allowed me to dual wield them. the other player(has been playing for a few years and got the role of advisor) didnt like it and convinced the dm to not allow it. the player claimed it was overpowered and the dm bought it and wouldnt listen to me. it was the start of the campaign, so i went with a different character concept.

i left that group pretty soon afterwards. maybe two weeks after the dm left, and the player who was giving me a hard time became the new dm.