|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, like the majority of the movie viewing public, I watched and absolutely adored Joss Whedon's latest movies 'The Avengers' and 'The Cabin in the Woods.'
I got to thinking what really resonated with me was how Whedon gives each character a role and personality. I am not talking about the brainless game-talk of 'defender', 'healbot', 'glass cannon'. I am talking about personality roles, who these people are and how they react. Putting in place a rich character foundation, so the character is so well-rounded we find it delightful to speculate about how they would react to certain situations.
This might be prompting a 'Duh, it's called good writing' from many of the better roleplayers at this point - but here's the clincher: 'The Avengers' isn't a good movie because it has a good plot. The villains and plot are glowy cube macguffin are highly ordinary. It's a great movie because the interactions of the heroes are so rich. We know nothing about the monstrous creatures at the finale of the film. The enjoyment is directly from the interaction of the personalities.
Whedon says of 'Avengers':
"Even though it isn't the origin story of any one person, it is the origin story of the team. In that sense, people have to find something in themselves that makes them need to work with each other. Something that makes them need to step outside of themselves. It's not a story of personal empowerment — it's a story about community."
To me, this sounds like the perfect philosophy to base the adventuring party dynamic.
Let's break down the 'avenging' adventuring party:
STARK/IRON MAN: Rich billionaire. Devout capitalist. "Tony owns everything he sees, and Gwyneth Paltrow is his girlfriend, so clearly he's not living in the real world." -Whedon. Loves technology and development. Alchemist.
CAPT AMERICA: Fish out of water. Conservative and idealistic. The very best of lawful good. Trusting and egalitarian to the point of fault. Distrustful of what isn't traditional and tried and true. Paladin.
BANNER/HULK: Silent and world-wearied. He has seen enough in his time to let the others do the talking while he sits back and observes. When he does take action, it is world shattering. Short temper. Barbarian.
BLACK WIDOW: Born actor. Enjoys manipulating the male ego to her benefit in any circumstance, even against the gods. Is capable in combat, but would prefer diplomacy to continue so she can run rings around opponents. Bard/rogue.
THOR: The powergamer who kicks in the door. Comes from a morally simplistic background that lacks the human nuances of the others, so he appears more simple and or blonde. Privileged compared to others. Flashy and loud. Magus or Barbarian.
HAWKEYE: Meh.
We can see this isn't a list of 'talents' but also include personality weaknesses and foibles. As we read through those descriptions, we can already see conflicts of philosophy occurring between the party.
Captain is a traditionalist, Stark is all about new developments. Widow is all about talking her way out, Hulk just smash. Thor was born with power, Hulk and Stark (who have a total bromance) can view their power as a curse, even though they had to work their asses off to attain it. Stark and Thor are extroverted, Hulk can pummel them both but Banner is introverted. Captain believes in the potential of everyone, Stark believes his own marketing about being a visionary ubermensch.
You are very quickly getting a community, dysfunctional, believable (and hilarious) being built by these characters interactions with one another.
Let's say the party are adventuring in Golarion and come across a unique Thassilonian ruin that is home to an enormous arcane device. Because of their developed personalities, we already know how these characters would react to the discovery.
Stark: Let's do some analysis and figure out if there's anything here we can patent!
Hulk: Careful, it might seem stable now, but appearances are deceptive.
Widow: Who built this? What did they want with it? Are they still around?
Captain: Let's make sure there's no villages nearby that might be harmed by the power of this device.
Thor: In Asgard, we have temples twice the size of this hovel.
You can see how their personality roles immediately provoke a believable and realistic reaction from the characters to the storyline device and develop a sense of self around the fictional character.
If you are looking to your alignment to determine how you react to other party members or events, you'll either be silent, or a two-dimensional cartoon. Alignment is a lame method of determining your character's personality. At the worst, you'll be neutral and have your motivations dominated by resource greed for EXP, gold and the old ale and wenches combo.
I won't discuss 'Cabin in the Woods' at length except that it's FANTASTIC and it strips 'roles' back to the very core of trope usage and genre storytelling. You need to watch it.
In conclusion/too long, didn't read:
Carefully formulating your character's personality role, identifying motivations, weaknesses and potential philosophical clashes with fellow adventurers will lead to richer 'off-the-cuff' role playing experiences. Write a paragraph about your character's personality role and leave alignment for determining spell effects.
|
While I do appreciate your view here on the whole, I would have to disagree with Banner being just a Barbarian. Maybe with multiclass, but he's really the quintessential Mutagen Master Alchemist. High Int class focused on science that can suddenly go Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde if necessary.
Also, I could definitely see Thor as a pure fighter. With what Pathfinder has done to the class since 3.5, it's become a force to be reckoned with in its own right.
Iron Man, while alchemist is definitely fitting, I could also see Magus working there. Flash, flair, and combat ability.
Poor Hawkeye, no love for the token Legolas-err... Archer. Ranger (archery), Monk (zen archer), or Fighter (focused on archery) would all be fitting. Perhaps even a ranged focused Magus. If he could do the same wackiness with bow and arrows that Gunslingers get away with using firearms, I'd say "Heck yeah"; but the flavor of the character doesn't really flow with loud, short-ranged, smoke-spewing, guns. Arcane Archer would also be a great prestige to aim for there.
Of course, all of this is mechanical as opposed to looking purely at personality roles in a party, but I think we have to look for a balance with both. We need a variety of personalities, just as we do with classes. We have a party full of just one type and things are just likely to be kinda boring (or potentially hilarious, thinking about a bunch of Tony's trying to steal the spotlight).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I agree on so many levels here:
1) Avengers Rocked. For all the reasons you noted. One you did not, was that we already had well defined characters. Except for Black Widow and Hawkeye (and Black Widow is actually more interesting with the mystery about her life), they all had their own movie to define who they were and how they’d react in a given situation. We already knew the character’s creation stories.
2) Define your character’s role in the world, then pick class/race/alignment that best fits your character concept. If you start with a fighter and just want to be able to do whatever you want so pick Chaotic Neutral, then yeah, your character will at best be two-dimensional, but certainly not very dynamic.
Of course if you have fun creating your character from the weapon up, or a different method of creation works better for you, game on!
Iron Man - Eldritch Knight
Hulk - Feral Alchemist Barbarian
Captain 'merica! - Fighter
Black Widow - Assassin
Thor - Paladin
Hawkeye - Ranger
If you are looking to your alignment to determine how you react to other party members or events, you'll either be silent, or a two-dimensional cartoon. Alignment is a lame method of determining your character's personality. At the worst, you'll be neutral and have your motivations dominated by resource greed for EXP, gold and the old ale and wenches combo.
That paragraph is a good summary of your post.
Yes, I agree. Most people don't understand that alignment is a guideline only and should not be what determines a PCs personality (otherwise there would be only 9 character types).
But it's kind of a moot point anyway, I don't see enough roleplaying (even alignment based roleplaying) from PFS players. There's also not enough interaction between the PCs/players themselves. There has to be roleplaying first before even discussing that people are roleplaying too much based on alignment.
The few people that actually roleplay don't roleplay based on alignment from what I've seen.
Because of their developed personalities, we already know how these characters would react to the discovery.
OK, but I think we all have our opinions on what the characters would think, these are definitely not my thoughts on the characters. For example, money isn't the first thing on Stark's mind, that's why he doesn't actually run his company. He cares about thoughts and new ideas.
Anyway, it's not really important, but I agree it's a great movie.
Agent Coulson - NPC plot device... :(
Who still ended up being the best character of the film.
Ironman/Stark is totally a synthesist summoner though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best part of what you're talking about? Whedon does it with everything he's apart of. Buffy, Angel, and Firefly all have similar "party" dynamics that make you understand the characters and how they interact. Probably why nerdy folks like us love Joss so much
