Sometime in the last calendar year I decided to take the list of 98 roleplaying characters I portrayed between 2002 and 2016 (feel free to re-read that until the implications regarding my mentality really sink in), and think about how I would describe the evolution of those characters over the course of the story that was told. In the course of this mental exercise I identified nine personality styles or archetypes (I use the word loosely) to describe the various phases of character development, which I see as naturally fitting into three groups:
Group 1: Defined by conflict
- Mercenary - Fights (or steals, or whatever else) for personal enrichment
- Warrior - Fights with and/or under the command of others; follows rules of engagement
- Champion - Fights for a cause
Group 2: Defined by a relationship to harm
- Survivor - Endures harm
- Guardian - Prevents harm
- Healer - Undoes harm
Group 3: Defined by how they see their "place" in the world
- I Just Work Here - Accepts their place, tries to live a normal life
- Explorer - Questions their place, inquisitive regarding the world around them
- Leader - Defines their place, reshapes the world around them
The three tiers in each group are characterized by the level of influence the character has or tries to have on the events or worlds in which they find themselves. Tier one takes the world as it is; tier two thinks the world could be different; tier three thinks the world should be different.
You may notice that off on the left there's a lonely bubble labeled "Mercenary" that doesn't connect to anything else. I have tried on more than one occasion to play a character with a mercenary mindset. However, these characters never grow, develop, or change in any notable way, no matter how long the story runs. I believe that is because the mercenary mentality does not make sense to me, and I don't have an intuitive grasp of how a person evolves from - or to - that style of being. Or, maybe what I do understand of it frightens me, so I try to steer clear.
