Huh. I still don't see the connection. My decision to play a ranger that hates orcs in now way inhibits your ability to play an orc. However you want to play it.
Its a more extreme example - either you need to moderate your hatred, find some other way to work together, or, woeat case, you'll have potentially fatal intraparty conflict.
Not that it can't be done: if you take the hate down to the level of mere tension so you can work together, for instance. But, that's changing how your character thinks/feels to enable another player to have the character they want.
The difference is that the stakes are much higher. Intraparty conflict vs mere inefficiency.
Now, it may cause party tension. There may be a practical implications. But it in no way affects your character concept, or your ability to use your character features.
While both characters are alive, anyway.
Now, except for the stakes being lower, there's no difference between that scenario, and your hypothetical existentially egotistical loner, who cannot possibly ever benefit from teamwork (unless magic) or inspiration (unless magic) nor hold positive feelings for another sentient being (unless magic), (Which, apart from the magic exemptions, is not exactly an unknown archetype, it's totally Overkill from The Tick, for instance, arguably only a little more extreme than Boromir.) being confronted with the intolerable prospect of working with someone whose whole deal is teamwork, comraderie, & inspiration (though, if it were Elan from OotS, playfully lampshading the ridiculousness of the 3e Bard, you'd be fine with it, because magic).
Except for the lack of potential for intraparty homicide ("wait homicide doesn't apply to orcs it's just past control!" ... sorry, no, we're moving on, you'll have to murder your half-orc friend off-screen). As I was saying, though the stakes are lower, the ways of dealing are similar. One of you can change character concepts, or even just moderate the degree a bit, or, you can work out a dynamic that supports both concepts, or, you can both just play what you want, and damn the consequences - which, in this case, is just Mr Loner declining the benefits of Raya Sunshine's shtick. If there's another support character, like Elan or a high priest of Sub-Niggoroth or something, things'll likely be fine.
Imagine, instead, you showed up and said, "Ok, I have this cool orc character, but a bunch of his abilities only work if you all think orcs are cute and adorable. So I need your characters to all find orc loveable, ok?."
Ooh cute analogy, with just three subtle flaws:
1) Orcs are notoriously not-cute, really, it's like a point if racial pride, devil's wanting to torment their orc slaves probably pinch their cheeks and say "who's my cutesie-wootsie widdle orc..." because it's worse torture than being disembowled by elves, for them.
2) You posit lots of abilities that don't work without unanimous buy-in, vs abilities that you can choose not to work, on you, for RP reasons.
3) Orcs aren't cute. Now, I know, technically that's the same as the first subtle flaw, but it's just so subtle, I thought it bore mentioning, again.
BTW, outta left field: I assume you saw Peter Pan as a kid?
I bet you didn't clap for Tinkerbell - and were disappointed that she lived.
I mean, choice of handle ... seems a fair guess.
