There's No Wrong Way to Roleplay

[Technik4]

This is not a poll, but I'd be interested to see what others think. My assertion is that you can't roleplay incorrectly, in terms of making decisions for your character regarding morality, ethics, or quests. Your character is your own creation. You designed him or her and any action you feel is warranted probably is. There's no reason to ask if you are doing the right thing for your alignment since your alignment is something you chose to reflect your character's outlook. If your character starts acting against your original alignment that shows growth (or Chaos ).

Real people sometimes behave erratically and have been known to do things against their group's best interest or even against personal interest. People are unpredictable and may act simply to surprise themselves, push themselves, or others. Now, I'm not advocating doing any of this without letting the other players at the table know what's going on. But I think people should worry less about what their alignment dictates they do and more about what their character would do in a given situation. Especially in D&D, where life and death are always precariously close, it seems most adventuring characters would do their best to "live it up" since you might be dead the next day.

Following those words seems closer to real roleplaying than playing an alignment, a class, and X quirks with a prominent virtue and sin which seems to be the recipe for a lot of "characters".

Agree? Disagree?

 

[Fenes]

I let alignment follow actions, not the other way around, so I agree with your view.

 

[Jack7]

Real people sometimes behave erratically and have been known to do things against their group's best interest or even against personal interest. People are unpredictable and may act simply to surprise themselves, push themselves, or others.

I agree. I'll give you an example.

When I was a kid I used to play a Paladin. My party was in a fight against a fella who had wiped out an entire city with a vicious mutant smallpox plague and in the fight things were pretty much going against us. We were in the bad-guy's lair and I happened to notice that he had left a glob of pure evil just lying around. Using my paladin powers and sensing what it was I picked it up and slung it at the fella and with a natural 20 hit him square in his manhood.

Seconds later it had burned his britches completely off and severely and brutally scared up his nether-regions, not to mention most all of his outdoors. He was instantly traumatized and fled the scene and although we never got him I did hear later that he had spent three years in therapy with an internationally renown talking sage, just trying to put it all behind him (so to speak). After that I started carrying around a glob of pure evil everywhere I went. Pure evil is pretty potent stuff if you use it right.

Eventually my party started calling me the PEP Boy, for Pure Evil Paladin. Now I didn't use pure evil just whenever, but if we ever came across just the right situation then I'd give the bad guys a good taste of their own, or maybe two or three tastes and a complimentary breakfast-on-the-run to boot. That worked out just fine most of the time because I like to see most people eat well, even if they can't always eat healthy.

Not long after that we quit playing alignment altogether because some of the boys in my outfit got jealous that pure evil worked better as a weapon in my hands as a paladin than for their warforged fiddly-diddly-doos. But that's the price you pay for being war-forged, ain't it?


And yes I'm just joking. That's not really the price you pay for being war-forged.
That's just one of the prices you pay for being war-forged.

But all in all, I'm with you more or less, alignment sucks.
It's the daffy-duck of Role Playing.

 

[Ourph]

Following those words seems closer to real roleplaying than playing an alignment, a class, and X quirks with a prominent virtue and sin which seems to be the recipe for a lot of "characters".

So, there's no wrong way to roleplay.... except the one you don't agree with?

 

[Technik4]

So, there's no wrong way to roleplay.... except the one you don't agree with?

Heh, I noticed that in the last line before I posted. There's nothing *wrong* with playing a class, alignment, several quirks and a few virtues, but it just doesn't seem as *real* as playing a character who can make decisions without factoring in that mechanical stuff.

 

[xnosipjpqmhd]

Personally I don't care whether other players are motivated by alignment or not. Some players use it as a crutch or excuse for certain behavior, which I find silly (not necessarily *wrong*, mind you).

Given the choice I prefer characters with more dynamic motivations and mores than those (inaccurately) reflected by alignment.

As for whether there is a wrong way to roleplay, I'd say yes, there is, the litmus test being:
- is someone not having fun?
- is there something illegal, immoral, unethical, or just plain offensive going on?

If yes is answered to either question, you've found the wrong way to roleplay.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I put on my robe and wizard hat ...

 

[Mark]

I suppose it depends on whether a player is playing a character as the player sees it or playing a character as they think the character would see it. I believe that the latter requires the same subjectivity in-character but a different degree of objectivity at the meta-game level.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

This is not a poll, but I'd be interested to see what others think. My assertion is that you can't roleplay incorrectly, in terms of making decisions for your character regarding morality, ethics, or quests. Your character is your own creation. You designed him or her and any action you feel is warranted probably is. There's no reason to ask if you are doing the right thing for your alignment since your alignment is something you chose to reflect your character's outlook. If your character starts acting against your original alignment that shows growth (or Chaos ).

I think your assertion is off a little. I've seen players flip-flop their characters all over the place depending upon the situation and the player's mood. When it makes no sense whatsover based upon past behavior, but turns out to be the most convenient for the game, then I would say you very well might be "roleplaying incorrectly"

Real people sometimes behave erratically and have been known to do things against their group's best interest or even against personal interest. People are unpredictable and may act simply to surprise themselves, push themselves, or others. Now, I'm not advocating doing any of this without letting the other players at the table know what's going on. But I think people should worry less about what their alignment dictates they do and more about what their character would do in a given situation. Especially in D&D, where life and death are always precariously close, it seems most adventuring characters would do their best to "live it up" since you might be dead the next day.

Following those words seems closer to real roleplaying than playing an alignment, a class, and X quirks with a prominent virtue and sin which seems to be the recipe for a lot of "characters".

Agree? Disagree?

While I agree that alignment should not be a behavioral straightjacket, there is nothing wrong with using it as the main guidance for a player to decide on a PCs behavior. If a player is running a PC with a very different alignment than their own personal beliefs, they may have a difficult time keeping their own personality from taking over the PCs. Players can benefit from using the alignment descriptions to guide the decisions their PCs might make that would be counter to their own personal feelings or beliefs.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I agree if the person is good at roleplaying, but I have seen people who really should atleast try to follow their alignment a little more.

For example:

Evil-Githyanki character killed someone, he for some unknown reason felt he should be rewarded for killing a innocent. After he wasn't, he turned to the Half-Elf Cleric and I quote, "can you turn me good." They didn't know he was evil and for all the play-times previously he had hid his evilness, but only decided to change when it didn't fit his mood/felt chipped out of not getting stuff for killing a old 90-year old man.