Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27850860-20160223031547/@comment-27701762-20160223083256

Perhaps I am relying too heavily on Freud directly, or misremembering something from the texts. Nevertheless, the description of id and superego as "functions" seems to be a misrepresentation. The id and superego are supposed to exert their own particular pressures, making the task of the ego to adjudicate and balance these competing pulls toward hedonism on the one hand and moralization on the other while caring for its own pulls at the same time. I acknowledge that there is the possibility that the two could align, but in the majority of cases they are supposed to be opposed in a fundamental way, as the id's pull toward physical pleasure is at odds with the high-minded morality of the superego. The ego doesn't use the id or superego, but acts as a judge and arbiter.

But your major point is whether this eight stage model of development can be imposed upon the game's narrative and progression. I'm not entirely certain whether the split between id and superego is actually necessary for this purpose, as I think you could explain things without reference to this split, which would get you around the problem of trying to fit Papyrus and Sans into the archetypes. I think I can see the first, second, and last stages, at least to some extent. Although I'm not entirely certain about the last stage. But I am not seeing the connections for the remaining stages. But I am not well-versed enough in Erikson's theory to be able to make the necessary connections between parts of the game narrative and the various stages.