Excessive In-Character Philosophizing

[Fauchard1520]

As a natural spotlight hog and melodramatic diva, I like nothing better than in-character philosophizing.

"Are my actions truly evil? Does my android PC have a soul? Should we save the possessed orphans or burn them down?"

The trouble is that it’s difficult to do "deep and meaningful" properly when you're improvising, and doubly so when the rest of the table just wants to stab the next monster.

So here's m question to the board: How do you play with moral quandaries and philosophical conundrums in-game without beating a dead horse? Are they better left for between-sessions character journals? Or is it yet another case of "read the room" and "find a group that likes that stuff?"

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

 

[Cadence]

As a natural spotlight hog and melodramatic diva, I like nothing better than in-character philosophizing.

"Are my actions truly evil? Does my android PC have a soul? Should we save the possessed orphans or burn them down?"

The trouble is that it’s difficult to do "deep and meaningful" properly when you're improvising, and doubly so when the rest of the table just wants to stab the next monster.

So here's m question to the board: How do you play with moral quandaries and philosophical conundrums in-game without beating a dead horse? Are they better left for between-sessions character journals? Or is it yet another case of "read the room" and "find a group that likes that stuff?"

(Comic for illustrative purposes.)

I do it mostly as thinking between sessions. Warning the DM if it seems a major thing, and just coming up with a biting quip and a way to still play with the party in general.

 

[TwoSix]

I generally guide my roleplay with two questions. One, am I taking actions that are pushing the game towards tension and conflict? The goal for that question is to answer "Yes". Two, if the first answer is "Yes", am I eating up too much spotlight time to do so? If "Yes", then I dial it back a bit.

I generally save ruminations and contemplation for small side conversations with interested players when the spotlight isn't currently on us.

 

[payn]

This will be more or less welcome depending on chosen game and playstyles of those around the table. Some games highly encourage this self reflection of character and moral philosophizing. I find D&D to often be a poor fit (look at all the alignment confusion and hate??) and suggest avoiding such in that system. Move onto the games that do fit like PbtA and other narrative styles.

I think the pacing is important. Its fun to reflect on the morality of our characters, the difference between them, and the larger world itself. I do think there is an act or get off the pot point. As a GM, I will sit back and let the players discuss amongst themselves as long as they seem interested and willing. Offering insight to the world and their inquires as necessary. Eventually, I will try and usher along play so the game doesn't bog down into a single dilemma. As a player, I will engage as often as seems necessary. I will also be mindful that its a group game, and when odd man out, find a way forward or way that isnt going to shutdown the session or game itself down.

 

[overgeeked]

As a natural spotlight hog and melodramatic diva, I like nothing better than in-character philosophizing.

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there's a problem.

So here's my question to the board: How do you play with moral quandaries and philosophical conundrums in-game without beating a dead horse?

We don't. They went away with the dropping of alignment restrictions. It doesn't matter, basically. When you get right down to it, there's no way to solve these questions in real life so expecting an imaginary fictional construct to even attempt to solve them is a bit much. People have been asking and trying to answer moral and philosophical questions for thousands of years. There's not much in the way of answers so far.

Are they better left for between-sessions character journals? Or is it yet another case of "read the room" and "find a group that likes that stuff?"

Yes, they're probably better for journaling and yes, if that's something you want to do in character, you should look for a group who are also interested in those kinds of RP.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I love when a game involves scenarios with no easy answer, or no objectively good or bad answer. That's some of my favorite stuff in RPGs. Now, I don't know if Hamlet style soliloquizing is the best way to express this... I prefer for it to be central to play.

I think that part of what makes this approach work is when players are fans of each others' characters. That they don't view it as "spotlight hogging" when play is focused on one character for a bit.

 

[Campbell]

A philosophical debate between characters, particularly between player characters can be interesting if it highlights differences between characters. I like to keep it relatively crisp though.

I think monologues are not well suited to the medium. Better to keep things moving and interactive. When in doubt try to make it into a conversation with someone else.

 

[Lanefan]

I love when a game involves scenarios with no easy answer, or no objectively good or bad answer. That's some of my favorite stuff in RPGs. Now, I don't know if Hamlet style soliloquizing is the best way to express this... I prefer for it to be central to play.

I don't mind the soliloquies but I find them best served while something else - usually a low-leverage combat - is going on at the same time, that someone just talks right through. Those interested in the one character's ruminations can listen (and respond) that while playing out the combat, while those who aren't still have the fight to focus on.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So here's m question to the board: How do you play with moral quandaries and philosophical conundrums in-game without beating a dead horse? Are they better left for between-sessions character journals? Or is it yet another case of "read the room" and "find a group that likes that stuff?"

I have a BA in Philosophy, so I had to think about a lot of scenarios from a lot of different perspectives.

And I think it helps inform my roleplaying. I try to have my PCs act in concert with who they are, not just being a projection of my self, and having some kind of ethical framework is part of that. It’s more important for certain characters than others, but it’s always an ingredient.

So, for instance, a NE Ftr/Th I played some years ago was a thug and a bully. He had ZERO qualms about endangering others- including other PCs- if he perceived it would benefit him in some way. But he’d also work hard to save someone he thought could benefit him in the near future. IOW, a cold-blooded pragmatist. People were things to him; relationships were transactional. The party wizard was the one most frequently caught n the whipsaw of dealing with him.

A campaign later, I was playing a Geomancer who was VERY good at saving lives.

 

[Umbran]

The trouble is that it’s difficult to do "deep and meaningful" properly when you're improvising, and doubly so when the rest of the table just wants to stab the next monster.

Yeah, well, that's a playstyle mismatch that should have been recognized in Session 0.

So here's m question to the board: How do you play with moral quandaries and philosophical conundrums in-game without beating a dead horse?

Simply by noting whether the other people at the table are engaged. It isn't "excessive" if everybody's into it.

In most of the game scenarios I run as GM, there is/are some ethical question(s) involved. So, some amount of philosophizing is expected to resolve most situations. But, my players generally like that kind of thing.