I'm not concerned about the children being dead, but why the solider is a child in a box being eaten and the priest/priestess is beating a child. How do these represent the classes? The rod and burning books, I get. The iron hand and the heart-shaped box I get. Why is the lawman/woman beating a child? Are you taking a particular view on each of these? Law keeping individuals down, religion attacking individuals, soldiers just being fed to the dogs?

I'm not concerned about the children being dead, but why the solider is a child in a box being eaten and the priest/priestess is beating a child. How do these represent the classes? The rod and burning books, I get. The iron hand and the heart-shaped box I get. Why is the lawman/woman beating a child? Are you taking a particular view on each of these? Law keeping individuals down, religion attacking individuals, soldiers just being fed to the dogs?

You missed the metaphor completely. The child IS the person with the class. That is their "self." The priest/priestess isn't beating a child, the priest/priestess is being beaten. Same for the lawman/lawwoman and the soldier. The child represents the "self", so the child being dead means that their "self" has been lost. The circumstances are showing what is responsible and why it is happening.

And the dog eating the child is another metaphor. The self is dead, and its death is strengthening the psychological aspect this dog represents.

And yeah, burning books are a pretty stock metaphor as well, aren't they?

I mis-worded what I meant.

Why is the priest/priestess religion beating the class/self/character/player?

Why is the soldier, the child, dead, if the class should be alive? You say the self is dead and this death is strengthening the psychological aspect the dog represents, but shouldn't this symbol represent the self, the child, instead of the dog? This one seems to be expressing the defeat of the self. I can see the soldier being the one that is holding up the heart-shaped box, but if the class is the child, then it isn't the soldier holding up the box.

Why is the lawman/woman being beaten if the child is the class?

I mis-worded what I meant.

Why is the priest/priestess religion beating the class/self/character/player?

Why is the soldier, the child, dead, if the class should be alive? You say the self is dead and this death is strengthening the psychological aspect the dog represents, but shouldn't this symbol represent the self, the child, instead of the dog? This one seems to be expressing the defeat of the self. I can see the soldier being the one that is holding up the heart-shaped box, but if the class is the child, then it isn't the soldier holding up the box.

Why is the lawman/woman being beaten if the child is the class?

The child is part of the individual, not the class. The child being dead simply means that their sense of self is lost. They've lost their individuality, their free will or their humanity. The lawman/lawwoman has lost themselves directly due to the law's conscious effort to break them. Physically, they are fine. Psychologically, not so much. The priest/priestess has lost themselves to their religion, which is an instrument of the law. They too are physically unharmed, but they are no longer an individual. The soldier is the most telling, as the psychological aspect represented by the dog is the persona. The law has their soul in the palm of its hand, suggesting this is the law's will that they lose their sense of self to strengthen their persona. (This is actually the primary purpose of military training, to break down a recruit and rebuild them into the soldier persona, an expendable part of an expendable unit.)

The child is part of the individual, not the class. The child being dead simply means that their sense of self is lost. They've lost their individuality, their free will or their humanity. The lawman/lawwoman has lost themselves directly due to the law's conscious effort to break them. Physically, they are fine. Psychologically, not so much. The priest/priestess has lost themselves to their religion, which is an instrument of the law. They too are physically unharmed, but they are no longer an individual. The soldier is the most telling, as the psychological aspect represented by the dog is the persona. The law has their soul in the palm of its hand, suggesting this is the law's will that they lose their sense of self to strengthen their persona. (This is actually the primary purpose of military training, to break down a recruit and rebuild them into the soldier persona, an expendable part of an expendable unit.)

Now your classes all make sense. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you mentioned potentially needing to explain these to others. I wasn't sure about your train of thought with these, so maybe finding some way to explain some of these in game? Perhaps when letting someone pick a class, add a little bit of the description that helps the player understand the metaphor?

Now your classes all make sense.

Really? Because I still think the shaman class is a bit... esoteric, the noble relies on knowledge of '90s pop culture and 18th-19th century French history in the same image, and, of course, some knowledge of tarot's use in fortune telling would help with the mystic's hand. And what of the warrior and rogue? They've barely been explained at all.

Although I already figured the physician projecting would be pretty easy.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you mentioned potentially needing to explain these to others. I wasn't sure about your train of thought with these, so maybe finding some way to explain some of these in game? Perhaps when letting someone pick a class, add a little bit of the description that helps the player understand the metaphor?

No, I think I'd prefer to let the interested players toss it around in their heads. Although the class descriptions might provide a few hints, and the insanity traits six of these classes possess might give a bit of insight. (Warriors are paranoid, shamans are narcissistic, physicians have hero complexes, priests are obsessive compulsive, savants are simply obsessive and bards are manic depressive.)

Really? Because I still think the shaman class is a bit... esoteric, the noble relies on knowledge of '90s pop culture and French history in the same image, and, of course, some knowledge of tarot's use in fortune telling would help with the mystic's hand. And what of the warrior and rogue?

The shaman I understood a bit. The noble I looked at as some high official from the description, an important person. Tarot cards are fairly recognizable but not necessarily the individual cards. A mystic is occasionally portrayed as blind, so that does help. The rogue was fine. A thief was the assumed class from the description, which is sometimes a name given to a rogue. The warrior seems fairly straight forward, someone wielding a weapon, facing an enemy.

No, I think I'd prefer to let the interested players toss it around in their heads. I mean, the class descriptions might provide a few hints, and the insanity traits six of these classes possess might give a bit of insight. (Warriors are paranoid, shamans are narcissistic, physicians have hero complexes, priests are obsessive compulsive, savants are simply obsessive and bards are manic depressive.)

I didn't mean you needed to explain each one to the player but providing some hints to the direction your metaphors go would help.

The mystic's self being blind represents a lack of natural perception, it's their motivation. They can't understand things themselves, so they turn to outside sources. The individual cards are important as well.

For the noble, look to Napolean Bonaparte and the song "Red Right Hand" by Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.

As for the warrior and rogue, there's a lot more shown there. The horned shadow represents the same thing for both, their weapons and the context also matter.

For the shaman, it's just the owl that's missing there. It represents awareness, the dog is their persona and the child is still their self.

Have you decided if you plan to follow through and make this game?

Have you decided if you plan to follow through and make this game?

Yes, we're going to do it. Why?

Edit:

I'll be adding more info about the game soon. Think it should be here or in another thread?