[UA] Channelling Multiple Archetypes

[Will]

Chad Underkoffler <chadu at yahoo.com> a écrit :
> 
> Again, I was coming at this from the Jungian perspective, where
> everybody contains all the Archetypes. If the rationale is that
> one chooses to focus utterly on one aspect of their psyche over
> the rest, I can buy it. If its that they deny that other parts
> of their psyche exist, I don't. (Indeed, I'd say that that
> should call for Stress Checks.)

Although the Nature/Demeanor system from WW wasn't really a good example
of what Jung had in mind, it can be helpful here.

Normal people have one Nature, and multiple Demeanors. Avatars have one Nature,
and one Demeanor, and it is the same. Too bad.

> I'm not sure multivatars necessarily lead to increasing the
> overall amount of supernatural stuff in the world, but...

I'd say there are 2 (conflicting, obviously) point of views here: either you
compare multivatars to geniuses, who can master several fields (I think that
would be your point) or you think that multivatars imply that it's globally
easier to master several fields (that would be Greg's point).

The fact that geniuses exist could prove that multivatars are possible. On
the other hand there were masters of several fields (Descartes, Pascal, Gauss,
...) but that was something like 3 hundred years ago. Right now they are
much less common. Maybe it has to do with the "narrowing" of Avatars, each
new one being more and more specialised...

> However, I was interested here in the psychological
> ramifications on a world where Archetypes worked more in a
> Jungian "everybody's got a full suite" rather than a "pick one"
> world like the mainline UA setting. The game qua game issues
> aren't what I was interested in.

Maybe what you're looking for is some kind of psychological jack-of-all-trades
archetype. That would  be "The totally fucked-up in its head". I'd say most
girls in their late teens channel it involontarily :)

I have quite a problem to see how Archetypes could work with the "everybody's
got a full suite" approach. There seems to be a contradiction in terms: the
emphasis in this approach is on "full", and the emphasis for archetypes is on
"focus". The Jungian approach is good for normal people. That's why archetypes
are different.

> Out of curiosity, Greg, how would you represent an honest to
> goodness, totally mundane polymath?

This looks like a _very_ theoretical question to me :)

Cheers,
Will


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Pour dialoguer en direct avec vos amis, 
Yahoo! Messenger : http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua