The nihilist, the stoic and the idealist.

They all represent some old and deep schools of thought, but more than that, they describe very well the bases in which human abstract and realization of the self is made. First there is the nihilist, who can also be the hedonist, or any other character that acts on the motive of its own pleasure or interest. This one is often seen as a villain of some sort, because he(or she) is selfish, he doesn't really care about the others or how the outcome maybe, as long as he is satisfied. But of course he can be a hero, just a bizarre type, because in case he is a hero then he has a more "realistic" approach, because he is the one who understands humans as selfish entities pretending, and he just cuts the crap and accepts his condition. He has seen decadence, he embraces it and lives from it.

Then of course is the good guy/real hero, who is stoic. He, like the nihilist, has probably seen decadence too, but the difference is that the stoic feels the need to change it, to cleanse the human from its nature into a perfect ethical form.This character acts only for pure intentions, to do what is correct and what in the conventional scale of principles is the best thing to do. This character can drift too, there is the fanatic, who will do anything in its power to stop the evil and make good prevail. But this too can end up in some psycho blowing up the world due to its evil.

Then there is the reasonable stoic, this one has seen all faces of the human spectrum, he knows the causes and effects of it, and he understand. But because he understands he doesn't/can't take too much action, because he sees the two sides of a story. So instead of imposing what's right, he just tries to make the most basic notions of what benefits all. The problem with this one, is that since he has so much understanding, and general lack of a stand, he drifts from his own human condition. He looses touch with humanity.

At last but not least is the idealist. He has a little bit of the other two, but the difference is that he fights for what he thinks is right and fair, this could be like the stoic, whatever is good, but not necessarily. The idealist is usually the actual hero, the one who fights and even trough adversity he maintains his principles, but his ideas tend to see what is the most sacred about the human form and taking a personal stand on it, protecting it with whatever they have.

The main difference with the others is that the nihilist does not hold anything sacred, and will do anything; but the stoic is not so different, because of his condition he can't take a certain subject as his main purpose, he must remain always acting for what's better for the others not himself, or his personal believes. This is what differences them all, and what makes the idealist more fit for a hero role.

Thinking of them, one could easily assign the roles to the villain, the mentor and the hero, in the respective order. But it then becomes harder to distinguish, what makes each human? Because creating this archetypes was not matter of chance, we all have them within. And it is then when the question pops, If you were a character, which type would you be?