Wandering Paupers

Whence the idea of the wandering adventurer pauper as the "default" assumption for roleplaying game PCs? It's not from history (most people we might think of as "traveling heroes" nowadays were historically members of the noble/upper classes, what with needing to be able to afford to take time off their jobs for adventuring, not to mention weapons), it's not from mythology (mythological heroes overwhelmingly tend to be members of the upper classes, if not outright princes and kings), it's not from the literature (from King Arthur and the Three Musketeers to Conan to Elric to most members of the Fellowship of the Ring to Holger from Three Hearts & Three Lions, most of these heroes tended to be upperclassmen too) - the one medium that comes to mind that routinely has peasant heroes is fairytales, but D&D, which obviously originated this idea within the context of RPGs, draws almost nothing from them.

So why paupers?

>Why does a genre primarily framed around the concept of exploration and travel in a hostile untamed wilderness encourage characters focused around the concept of exploration and travel in a hostile untamed wilderness
I can't imagine.

i was going to contradict you by pointing to the farmboy hero archetype like luke skywalker but then again he is arguably royalty.

a hobo has no connections or responsibilities so it's the most convenient background for players who just want to wander around and kill shit. hence "murderhobo". and being an aristocrat isn't cool anymore anyway.

Historically speaking, people who explored and traveled untamed wilderness for its own sake tended to be society's richest. Nobody else could afford this. This is reflected by mythology and literature, which is rife with people exploring and traveling untamed wilderness, who are members of the upper classes.

At least if you're talking standard D&D, player characters are not from the poorest segment of society. Your starting equipment costs imply a net worth well above the usual peasant.

Murrica happened. Gygax was from the midwest. A hero rising from humble origins to do great things is more believable than it used to be. The idea that high birth sets you on the path to greatness is much less believable than it used to be.

Its usually a better story to go from zero to hero than to go from rich fucko to hero.

Usually.

The "Zero to Hero" trope is a very modern thing. Notice how even in folklore, the "random fisherman ends up killing the giant and marrying the princess" very often turns out to have been a prince himself all along. It was simply inconceivable to people throughout most of history for someone who isn't a noble to succeed at things.

You'll notice how a lot of these games are being played in modern times, therefore the 'very modern thing' is more likely to come up as a theme.

you're fucking retarded. what about being poor makes someone a "character focused around the concept of exploration and travel in a hostile and untamed wilderness"?