9 Player Archetypes to Flesh out Campaign Co-Cultures
Which groups are the main protagonists of your game(s)? Which cultures is the campaign about? Or, probably more tellingly, which groups does your party represent, support, assist, and value? Which factions does it avoid, denigrate, attack, and disrupt? Which groups does your party perceive as a minority, as an inferior or subordinate force? According to Orbe’s Co-cultural Theory, people who have less power than those of the dominant group(s) will develop different communicative practices in order to get their needs met. This theory’s concerns (i.e., power, inequality, dominance) overlap with those of Muted Group and Face Negotiation Theories.
Your current character wants their waterskin to be refilled. Are you most likely to
a) Ask a passing NPC where the closest well is.
b) Distract a passerby so that you can steal their waterskin.
c) Humbly pray to the Good Lord Pelor to fill your waterskin.
d) Invoke your Dark Fey Patron’s name, commanding them to provide you the freshest Feywild Spring Water.
According to co-cultural theory, communication orientations like these are adopted by members of co-cultural groups when they want to get their interpersonal and group needs met. Unlike the waterskin example above, in which every player wants the same thing (water), co-cultural theory focuses on the different outcomes members of co-cultural groups may want. According to the theory, there are three goals: assimilation, accommodation, and separation. Each of these three goals can be approached in one of three ways: nonassertively, assertively, and aggressively. Just as with alignments, this three by three matrix yields nine sets of verbal and nonverbal communication practices. However, they can just as easily be mapped on to an (unwieldy) adventuring party:
First are the three types of assimilators. They each want so badly to fit in with who they see as the dominant culture. They each try to sound, speak, and act like members of the dominant culture.
Obsequious Toadie: The nonassertive assimilator, blends in, goes along and attempts to meet their own needs by focusing their own (and others’) attention on commonalities. They may be overly gracious and considerate of others (especially of others from the dominant culture). They self-censor.
Human Try-Hard: The assertive assimilator gets ahead with the dominant culture by trying to “beat them at their own game”. This human is a better dragon than the quintessential dragonborn. She overcompensates and extensively prepares her knowledge of draconic lineages, ancestry, and lore. She’s even made a costly deal to be the only Human studying at a famous Draconic library.
Dolezal Deceiver: An aggressive assimilation, single-minded in its focus, in which the person seeks to be identified as a member of what they see as the dominant culture. They ridicule their own co-cultural group, distancing themselves from their origin in word and action. A fierce individual, attempting to mirror the communication of the dominant group.
Accommodators work at changing the game, bending the rules to suit their strengths and history. Each of these three are at the very least presences which invite incremental change. They remain obvious out-group members.
Silent Monk: The nonassertive accommodator, this character is a visible reminder of their co-culture. They may work to dispel stereotypes through their actions. Otherwise, they do little more than maintain a presence as a reminder of their cultural heritage.
Janus Hammersmith: The assertive accommodator works tirelessly to advocate and accommodate the needs of both dominant and co-culture. They speak and act openly, networking, and serving as a diplomat, liaison, and go-between. They teach members of the dominant group to question their own cultural norms and stereotypes about co-cultures.
Offensive Prophet: The aggressive accommodator can also be found working with the dominant culture’s structure while calling for radical transformation of the status quo. They recognize the structures which hold down members of co-cultural groups and call others to attention. They confront in ways that may tread on the rights of others, calling out oppression and injustice in tactically extreme and perhaps insensitive ways.
The third category of communication orientation finds its chief goal is that of disintegration and separation. These communicators each find ways to maintain their co-culture independently despite any current dominant culture. These communicators produce divergent communication intended to accentuate differences between the individual and the dominant culture.
Homebody Smalltown: This adventurer isn’t an adventurer at all, preferring to stick with their own kind, close to home, and among kin. They avoid contact with outsiders, towns with different kinds of people, and any location where interaction with different folk is likely. They act aloof and unconcerned with others, using their words and actions to clearly communicate their disinterest.
Cloistered Cleric: This assertive separator is no victim or bumpkin. This cleric has made the very conscious and informed decision to remove themselves from the dominant culture. To them, the dominant culture is oppressive and unwanted. Thus the decision to separate oneself is rational. In the process, they have come to focus on their own co-cultural strengths, successes, and cultural contributions. Dominant group stereotypes are embraced, magnified, and made a point of pride.
Rebel Rebel: This is not a strategy for the faint of heart. Seen in the communication orientation of powerful co-cultural leaders, aggressive separation may involve inflicting physical or psychological pain on dominant culture members. Rebels may use sabotage or find ways to make being a member of the dominant culture less appealing. Robin Hood comes to mind.
The archetypal communication orientations just described provide players another facet to explore in their backstory creation. When considering one’s character, it could be beneficial (and at the very least interesting) to think about which dominant cultures and co-cultures your character belongs to. Further, if your dungeonmaster has their world’s factions in mind, it might help to consider how your character will react when confronted by both members of their own faction as well as different co-cultures.
For dungeonmasters, what are the dominant cultures you are likely to focus your campaign around? Which groups and factions are players likely to interact with and how do their fill the spectrum of dominant and co-cultural roles? The members of your dominant culture are likely working (even tacitly or unconsciously) to keep the status quo. Who, in your world, is working to subvert, undermine, or destroy those power structures? That’s your campaign. I don’t see how there’d be a way in D&D to create a campaign where there was only one faction…and why would you want to? It’d be horribly boring.
Comments
Post a Comment