A cliché or cliche (/ˈkliːʃeɪ/ or /klɪˈʃeɪ/) is an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
Fair enough. But very often cliche is a personal observation rather than an absolute state.
I personally play the power obsessed human wizard with dark hair and a goatee. I also play the halfling thief, the anti-social surly Ranger and the stoic devout priest(ess) in my group as well. All might be cliche from a certain point of view, but I like them.
My point is that something doesn't need to be original and ground breaking in order to be fun and enjoyable.
Sure. And playing a good Dungeons & Dragons game is like putting on a pair of comfortable old slippers.
I think it does become boring, trite and irritating when a supposedly "new" IP trots out the same old elves and dwarves though. I'm looking at you Pillars of Eternity.
A cliched race/class combination isn't necessaily a bad thing. A surly ranger, halfling thief, and devout priest(ess) can be interesting characters if you give them an interesting enough personality.
One of my last characters was a surly anti-social ranger who hated arcane magic, and had a deep mistrust of all women, considering them all to be manipulative harpies...many interesting discussions were had in game. Archetypes don't have to be boring, people just need a way to make them interesting.
Thing is, many people think that an obscure race/class combo, or an unusual background, automatically equals an interesting character, but I personally think a human paladin from Cormyr can be just as interesting as a half-drow half-demon ninja/assassin/paladin son of a demon lord cast out of hell and turned to the path of righteousness...it's all about the personality.
The thing I find with the non-human races is that I, personally, find it harder to come up with interesting personality traits without resorting to the usual "I love nature!", "I'm superior!", or "I hate humans, and cities! (hence why I spend most of my time in a city with humans)" for elves, and "Drink! Fight! Kill orcs!" for dwarves, etc. For some reason, I find it easier with humans.
i think that current parlance on the definition is a bit more fuzzy than simply the websters.com definition. While it is true that cliche is Usually used to mean something derogatory, it is often used to ACKNOWLEDGE that something is a relatively common trope or familiar combination.
I acknowledge that some of my character choices are a bit cliche, but do not believe that they are bad, nor my choice to like them is bad. While this may not follow the strict definition found in a dictionary, it is within the common usage of the word.
i think that current parlance on the definition is a bit more fuzzy than simply the websters.com definition. While it is true that cliche is Usually used to mean something derogatory, it is often used to ACKNOWLEDGE that something is a relatively common trope or familiar combination.
I acknowledge that some of my character choices are a bit cliche, but do not believe that they are bad, nor my choice to like them is bad. While this may not follow the strict definition found in a dictionary, it is within the common usage of the word.
If no one challenges incorrect word usage we will end up in a situation where no one can be sure what anyone else is talking about.
We have "archetype", we have "trope", there is no need to abuse "cliche".
The thing I find with the non-human races is that I, personally, find it harder to come up with interesting personality traits without resorting to the usual "I love nature!", "I'm superior!", or "I hate humans, and cities! (hence why I spend most of my time in a city with humans)" for elves, and "Drink! Fight! Kill orcs!" for dwarves, etc. For some reason, I find it easier with humans.
I like to play around with the stereotypes, so I'll often create an urbane cosmopolitan elf, a happy outgoing ranger, a quiet and studious dwarf scholar or an orc cleric of Heironeous.
i think that current parlance on the definition is a bit more fuzzy than simply the websters.com definition. While it is true that cliche is Usually used to mean something derogatory, it is often used to ACKNOWLEDGE that something is a relatively common trope or familiar combination.
I acknowledge that some of my character choices are a bit cliche, but do not believe that they are bad, nor my choice to like them is bad. While this may not follow the strict definition found in a dictionary, it is within the common usage of the word.
If no one challenges incorrect word usage we will end up in a situation where no one can be sure what anyone else is talking about.
We have "archetype", we have "trope", there is no need to abuse "cliche".
The definitions of words are challenged and changed every single day. It has been that way since the beginning of language.
"Archetype" doesn't really stipulate an overuse of something (which is what I was trying to convey), though, and doesn't "trope" basically mean the same thing as "cliche"?
To my understanding, a surly antisocial ranger is one of many archetypes, but when almost all rangers are surly and antisocial, surely that makes the archetype a cliche, right? What I'm trying to say (maybe I didn't phrase it properly) is that just because an archetype is overused to the point of becoming a cliche shouldn't mean nobody can ever use it again, because it can still be an interesting character depending on how you run with it.
A "trope" is a plot device that is used frequently, but it does not imply that it is necessarily overused to the level of being iritating. "Cliche" specifcally refers to something that is used TOO MUCH.
"Archetype" is a standard character. In order to be standard it must be used frequently. Ergo, there is no real need to say "common archetype". If it's not common then it isn't an archetype.
Yes, the meaning of words changes with time. "Trope" has only reciently entered common usage. That's why it's important to to discuss language, so that people remain able to understand each other. It's particularly important with written communication, since it strips away the non-verbal cues that are less prone to change.
@SmilingSword Because to me, the one race I care about, never gets to be a playable race. Instead, games prefer to freaking use them for genocidal tendencies...
@the_spyder You touch on the fact that elves and dwarves do not exist.
Yet I think the race knowledge of other peoples that are not human is so strong I believe it manifested from a time when homo saps where not the only hominid.
Trolls / Ogres = Neanderthals
Fairies / Elves = Homo floresiensis
I could go on...
Tribes of pygmies and gigantism / dwarfism in individuals will also inspired tales.
The tales are believable because the whole gamut of human experience is, to put bluntly, is more amazing, diverse, terrifying and beautiful than we can ever imagine.
A good story always has some truth in it...
What mythological race are Africans in Eurocentric mythology? @the_spyder
@the_spyder You touch on the fact that elves and dwarves do not exist.
Yet I think the race knowledge of other peoples that are not human is so strong I believe it manifested from a time when homo saps where not the only hominid.
Trolls / Ogres = Neanderthals
Fairies / Elves = Homo floresiensis
I could go on...
Tribes of pygmies and gigantism / dwarfism in individuals will also inspired tales.
The tales are believable because the whole gamut of human experience is, to put bluntly, is more amazing, diverse, terrifying and beautiful than we can ever imagine.
A good story always has some truth in it...
What mythological race are Africans in Eurocentric mythology? @the_spyder
Why am I being tagged in this? Did you mean to ask @Anduin the question? You quoted him after all.
If you ask me, Africans would be represented by humans in Eurocentric mythology.
@the_spyder You touch on the fact that elves and dwarves do not exist.
Yet I think the race knowledge of other peoples that are not human is so strong I believe it manifested from a time when homo saps where not the only hominid.
Trolls / Ogres = Neanderthals
Fairies / Elves = Homo floresiensis
I could go on...
Tribes of pygmies and gigantism / dwarfism in individuals will also inspired tales.
The tales are believable because the whole gamut of human experience is, to put bluntly, is more amazing, diverse, terrifying and beautiful than we can ever imagine.
A good story always has some truth in it...
What mythological race are Africans in Eurocentric mythology? @the_spyder
Why am I being tagged in this? Did you mean to ask @Anduin the question? You quoted him after all.
If you ask me, Africans would be represented by humans in Eurocentric mythology.
@the_spyder yea sorry, the tagging mistakes happen sir.
The african warrior has always been related to tall giants, the nubians, were favoured mercenaries used by the egyptians. (Egyptians are oddly portrayed as olive skinned, which is odd in itself as egyptians are africans themselves... and surely quite closely related to the nubians. Hmmm... The only difference is the nubians were considered not civilised. They are human savages. Willing to throw themselves into deaths embrace without care or thought. Honour and duty to the tribe being more important than the self. They wear loincloths for real, whilst the fantasy northern barbarian could never in reality survive in just a loincloth... furred or otherwise...
This human barbarian/savage idea of africans was continued into the modern day with films like Zulu.
In fantasy? In the arthurian tradition Sagramore is an honourable prince of a far off land (I think he is a prince of byzantium?) a giant of a man and everyone fears his countenance...
So... The noble savage. Minsc is a good example of this.
EDIT: The civilisations in africa however point to the fact that these eurocentric viewpoints are wrong. I don't agree with them because of it. I'm just answering the question here.
@the_spyder You touch on the fact that elves and dwarves do not exist.
Yet I think the race knowledge of other peoples that are not human is so strong I believe it manifested from a time when homo saps where not the only hominid.
Trolls / Ogres = Neanderthals
Fairies / Elves = Homo floresiensis
I could go on...
Tribes of pygmies and gigantism / dwarfism in individuals will also inspired tales.
The tales are believable because the whole gamut of human experience is, to put bluntly, is more amazing, diverse, terrifying and beautiful than we can ever imagine.
A good story always has some truth in it...
What mythological race are Africans in Eurocentric mythology? @the_spyder
If you are intent on drawing biological comparisons, africans would be pure strain homo sapiens, whilst europeans would be half orcs (homo sapiens/neanderthal hybrids).
@Anduin Nice answer, lol. I wanna make a jokr so bad right now lol.
@Fardragon Do not let the rest of the internet year you say that, lmao.
@the_spyder In this age, yes but in the ancient world where all these stories were forming, I don't agree necessarily. Due to the physical appearance alone, there would be some kind of story/rumor about them being different, even not human. But I digress, I was just wondering about it.
Homo Floriensis would be Halflings/hobbits, considering their stature
The hypothesis is the race memories of other hominid species inspired mythology. Something invented only ninty years ago hardy qualifies as mythological.
@Anduin ironically, the African noble savage sounds like it has more in common with the barbarian class than the northman/viking/berserker archetype does!
In fact, I never really liked "barbarian" as a class name, because the name is basically a Roman word meaning "anyone who's not us". I would have used "berserker" instead, but apparently that's a myth too..."berserk" simply means "bear shirt", so a berserker is basically somebody who wears a bear shirt. There isn't any evidence to show that they went batshit crazy with furious rage in battles either...in fact, I can't think of a culture that did do this. They weren't illiterate either...at least no more than everybody else.
Then again, D&D has many mythical archetypes from which its classes are based... the honourable swashbuckling pirate; the kind and chivalrous cavalier/paladin; the Celtic bard who creates magical effects with his music; the ninja from the lands of the Orient who can disappear; the Aragorn style ranger who can hide in the forest and talk to animals... so why not have a batshit crazy furious raging berserker who no able talk English proper as well?
eta: the thing about Africa is...it's bloody big. It's a big continent with lots of countries, and some of those countries might share some cultural similarities with each other, but a lot of them don't. A Somalian would be furious at the thought of being compared with a Kenyan, for example. So when we say "African", do we necessarily mean "sub-Saharan"?
Homo Floriensis would be Halflings/hobbits, considering their stature
The hypothesis is the race memories of other hominid species inspired mythology. Something invented only ninty years ago hardy qualifies as mythological.
Hobbits were invented just down the road from where I live.
I was referring to fairies, trolls, elves, old, old, MYTHOLOGICAL, beings. The difference between myth and fantasy is simply the age of the story in many cases.
It is an opinion and not one I can really back up with good argument or science. I like the idea of racial memory more than I actually believe in it...
Homo Floriensis would be Halflings/hobbits, considering their stature
The hypothesis is the race memories of other hominid species inspired mythology. Something invented only ninty years ago hardy qualifies as mythological.
Hobbits were invented just down the road from where I live.
I was referring to fairies, trolls, elves, old, old, MYTHOLOGICAL, beings. The difference between myth and fantasy is simply the age of the story in many cases.
It is an opinion and not one I can really back up with good argument or science. I like the idea of racial memory more than I actually believe in it...
I know, I was replying to LadyRhian.
I don't think there was any contact between Homo Florensis and Homo Sapiens - that's how they managed to survive so long.
However, if we lump all tales of "strange people who live in the deep woods or just beyond the edges of civilisation" together, we might connect them to contact between homo sapiens and Neanderthals (and possibly one or to other hominid species that survived until relatively recently).
For a little supportive evidence, such stories seem to be more common in northern European and SE Asian mythology than in African mythology.
@Squire I agree with you, Africa is a source, but I can add one more confusing twist. India is a source of the barbarian in loincloth ideal.
Picture in your head an old fashioned circus strongman, lifting an iron bar with two cannonballs welded on to the ends, wearing a leopard skin garb, a bald head and a overworked moustache.
I've described the Indian strong man. They performed feats such as killing prisoners by squashing skulls between there bare hands...
I am in a poor WiFi signal area. I will send links when I can.
@Fardragon stories from the local tribes appear to suggest that homo florensis was about and causing mischief up to the 16th Century... But they could be trying to make money from gullible journalists... Will send a link.
Nope. I'm not a human lover, my brother does. Idk, in rpg what so interesting about human? I rather be a badass beast than a mere human. I'm a mermaid/elf/fairy/beastfolk lover. My ultimate loved character is Gumiho(nine tailed fox) unfortunately there's not much rpg that have a gumiho character. 2nd ultimate loved is merman/mermaid. If there's no gumiho or mermaid I'll choose anything that's not human. I'm a simple girl
Comments
I personally play the power obsessed human wizard with dark hair and a goatee. I also play the halfling thief, the anti-social surly Ranger and the stoic devout priest(ess) in my group as well. All might be cliche from a certain point of view, but I like them.
My point is that something doesn't need to be original and ground breaking in order to be fun and enjoyable.
I think it does become boring, trite and irritating when a supposedly "new" IP trots out the same old elves and dwarves though. I'm looking at you Pillars of Eternity.
One of my last characters was a surly anti-social ranger who hated arcane magic, and had a deep mistrust of all women, considering them all to be manipulative harpies...many interesting discussions were had in game. Archetypes don't have to be boring, people just need a way to make them interesting.
Thing is, many people think that an obscure race/class combo, or an unusual background, automatically equals an interesting character, but I personally think a human paladin from Cormyr can be just as interesting as a half-drow half-demon ninja/assassin/paladin son of a demon lord cast out of hell and turned to the path of righteousness...it's all about the personality.
The thing I find with the non-human races is that I, personally, find it harder to come up with interesting personality traits without resorting to the usual "I love nature!", "I'm superior!", or "I hate humans, and cities! (hence why I spend most of my time in a city with humans)" for elves, and "Drink! Fight! Kill orcs!" for dwarves, etc. For some reason, I find it easier with humans.
I acknowledge that some of my character choices are a bit cliche, but do not believe that they are bad, nor my choice to like them is bad. While this may not follow the strict definition found in a dictionary, it is within the common usage of the word.
We have "archetype", we have "trope", there is no need to abuse "cliche".
To my understanding, a surly antisocial ranger is one of many archetypes, but when almost all rangers are surly and antisocial, surely that makes the archetype a cliche, right? What I'm trying to say (maybe I didn't phrase it properly) is that just because an archetype is overused to the point of becoming a cliche shouldn't mean nobody can ever use it again, because it can still be an interesting character depending on how you run with it.
"Archetype" is a standard character. In order to be standard it must be used frequently. Ergo, there is no real need to say "common archetype". If it's not common then it isn't an archetype.
Yes, the meaning of words changes with time. "Trope" has only reciently entered common usage. That's why it's important to to discuss language, so that people remain able to understand each other. It's particularly important with written communication, since it strips away the non-verbal cues that are less prone to change.
Because to me, the one race I care about, never gets to be a playable race. Instead, games prefer to freaking use them for genocidal tendencies...
@the_spyder
If you ask me, Africans would be represented by humans in Eurocentric mythology.
yea sorry, the tagging mistakes happen sir.
The african warrior has always been related to tall giants, the nubians, were favoured mercenaries used by the egyptians. (Egyptians are oddly portrayed as olive skinned, which is odd in itself as egyptians are africans themselves... and surely quite closely related to the nubians. Hmmm... The only difference is the nubians were considered not civilised. They are human savages. Willing to throw themselves into deaths embrace without care or thought. Honour and duty to the tribe being more important than the self. They wear loincloths for real, whilst the fantasy northern barbarian could never in reality survive in just a loincloth... furred or otherwise...
This human barbarian/savage idea of africans was continued into the modern day with films like Zulu.
In fantasy? In the arthurian tradition Sagramore is an honourable prince of a far off land (I think he is a prince of byzantium?) a giant of a man and everyone fears his countenance...
So... The noble savage. Minsc is a good example of this.
EDIT: The civilisations in africa however point to the fact that these eurocentric viewpoints are wrong. I don't agree with them because of it. I'm just answering the question here.
Nice answer, lol. I wanna make a jokr so bad right now lol.
@Fardragon
Do not let the rest of the internet year you say that, lmao.
@the_spyder
In this age, yes but in the ancient world where all these stories were forming, I don't agree necessarily. Due to the physical appearance alone, there would be some kind of story/rumor about them being different, even not human. But I digress, I was just wondering about it.
In fact, I never really liked "barbarian" as a class name, because the name is basically a Roman word meaning "anyone who's not us". I would have used "berserker" instead, but apparently that's a myth too..."berserk" simply means "bear shirt", so a berserker is basically somebody who wears a bear shirt. There isn't any evidence to show that they went batshit crazy with furious rage in battles either...in fact, I can't think of a culture that did do this. They weren't illiterate either...at least no more than everybody else.
Then again, D&D has many mythical archetypes from which its classes are based... the honourable swashbuckling pirate; the kind and chivalrous cavalier/paladin; the Celtic bard who creates magical effects with his music; the ninja from the lands of the Orient who can disappear; the Aragorn style ranger who can hide in the forest and talk to animals... so why not have a batshit crazy furious raging berserker who no able talk English proper as well?
eta: the thing about Africa is...it's bloody big. It's a big continent with lots of countries, and some of those countries might share some cultural similarities with each other, but a lot of them don't. A Somalian would be furious at the thought of being compared with a Kenyan, for example. So when we say "African", do we necessarily mean "sub-Saharan"?
I was referring to fairies, trolls, elves, old, old, MYTHOLOGICAL, beings. The difference between myth and fantasy is simply the age of the story in many cases.
It is an opinion and not one I can really back up with good argument or science. I like the idea of racial memory more than I actually believe in it...
I don't think there was any contact between Homo Florensis and Homo Sapiens - that's how they managed to survive so long.
However, if we lump all tales of "strange people who live in the deep woods or just beyond the edges of civilisation" together, we might connect them to contact between homo sapiens and Neanderthals (and possibly one or to other hominid species that survived until relatively recently).
For a little supportive evidence, such stories seem to be more common in northern European and SE Asian mythology than in African mythology.
Picture in your head an old fashioned circus strongman, lifting an iron bar with two cannonballs welded on to the ends, wearing a leopard skin garb, a bald head and a overworked moustache.
I've described the Indian strong man. They performed feats such as killing prisoners by squashing skulls between there bare hands...
I am in a poor WiFi signal area. I will send links when I can.
@Fardragon stories from the local tribes appear to suggest that homo florensis was about and causing mischief up to the 16th Century... But they could be trying to make money from gullible journalists... Will send a link.
Idk, in rpg what so interesting about human?
I rather be a badass beast than a mere human. I'm a mermaid/elf/fairy/beastfolk lover. My ultimate loved character is Gumiho(nine tailed fox) unfortunately there's not much rpg that have a gumiho character. 2nd ultimate loved is merman/mermaid.
If there's no gumiho or mermaid I'll choose anything that's not human. I'm a simple girl