There's No Wrong Way to Roleplay

[werk]

I want to agree, there is no wrong way to roleplay, but I just can't.

Aside from the numerous disruptive, disrespectful, or otherwise unacceptable ways people could roleplay, I'm just stopped by the word itself.

Role-play. Playing a role. If the role is undefined, how can you claim to be roleplaying as opposed to simply playing?

If you establish alignment, that means that is the pervading attitude of the character, not just simply what you needed to enter into the field in order for the character to be legal. It is the character's neutral state, his nature. If you, as a player, do not or can not play the role, then you would be doing it wrong...you are just playing without the structure of role.

 

[Mallus]

- is there something illegal, immoral, unethical, or just plain offensive going on?

Hah... you've just described three of the four cornerstones of my current campaign.

Is there a wrong way to roleplay? Most likely not. But there certainly are wrong attitudes to bring to the game; the foremost being one where you assume your idea of fun trumps the other player's, to the point where you object to their actions or play style even when it has no bearing on your character or the outcomes your character are pursuing.

 

[Technik4]

If you establish alignment, that means that is the pervading attitude of the character, not just simply what you needed to enter into the field in order for the character to be legal. It is the character's neutral state, his nature. If you, as a player, do not or can not play the role, then you would be doing it wrong...you are just playing without the structure of role.

But how you feel the character should be played is paramount, not the current alignment. In real life people don't question how they generally do things before acting, they act in a manner they wish to. Concepts like honor, duty, loyalty, integrity, etc may make a person do things against their nature, grudgingly. But no one consciously thinks "Well, I consider myself a lawful good person and therefore I should act in this manner". Similarly, no one thinks "Well I'm an engineer, so in this given situation I should act like an engineer." People act the way they've acted their whole lives, and my point is even "lawful" people have bouts of inconsistency.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not even going to answer a loaded question like this.

All I'm going to say is that I've met some people who I thought were better role players than other people.

 

[Shadeydm]

The wrong way to roleplay is the way that ruins the enjoyment of the game for the other people at the table.

 

[Celebrim]

But how you feel the character should be played is paramount, not the current alignment. In real life people don't question how they generally do things before acting, they act in a manner they wish to. Concepts like honor, duty, loyalty, integrity, etc may make a person do things against their nature, grudgingly. But no one consciously thinks "Well, I consider myself a lawful good person and therefore I should act in this manner". Similarly, no one thinks "Well I'm an engineer, so in this given situation I should act like an engineer." People act the way they've acted their whole lives, and my point is even "lawful" people have bouts of inconsistency.

I agree that everyone has a certain amount of inconsistency in thier behavior, but as for the rest I think you may be trying to generalize your own personal internal conversations (or lack of them) to the rest of the world, and in that you are completely and utterly wrong.

People do think to themselves, "I consider myself a honorable/honest/charitable person, and hense I should do the honorable/honest/charitable thing."

"People can have a natural inclination to be loyal, honorable, honest, and so forth, and not always do 'the right thing' grudgingly, but with gladness.

And people do think to themselves, "Well, I'm an engineer, so in this situation I should act like an engineer.", because I've had engineers tell me that exact thing. ("X asked me to do such and such but I couldn't, because I'm an engineer and I have to act like one.") Doctor's, accountants, and other professionals with a lot of responcibility (at least the better ones) often have the very same outlook.

As for consistancy and how it relates to alignment, there is a really great quote in Terry Pratchett's 'Thud!':

"The trouble was, the trolls up in the plaza probably weren't bad trolls, and the dwarfs down in the square probably weren't bad dwarfs, either. People who probably weren't bad could kill you."

So I'm in perfect agreement that alignment isn't a straight jacket.

But in my experience often time when that is brought up, the player has a personal or metagame reason for wanting to label thier character some particular alignment, but doesn't really want to play the character in a way that primarily reflects that alignment. The argument that alignment isn't a straightjacket then becomes a weasel argument for allowing you to have the best of both worlds. I have no problem with occassional well considered departures from what is the normal behavior of your character, provided that these don't happen so frequently and so consistantly as to suggest that you've misdescribed your character. "I'm basically a good person, but I murder and steal with the slightest provocation all the time.", doesn't cut it.

 

[Crothian]

There are wrong way to role play. It might be extreme examples in some cases but just because that's how the player role plays the character doesn't make it right.

 

[jdrakeh]

There are wrong way to role play. It might be extreme examples in some cases but just because that's how the player role plays the character doesn't make it right.

I recall a (verified true) story about a guy who would crap in his pants rather than leave the table during a game session, for fear that he'd miss out on something important. I could be wrong -- but I'm thinking that this is a horribly wrong way to roleplay. If you don't get up to relieve yourself during a game session, you're playing wrong.

 

[Thunderfoot]

There are absolutely *wrong* ways to roleplay...the only problem is defining what is wrong and who gets to define such an action. Quirks and erratic behavior aside, a paladin that tortures kittens is probably doing something wrong....

However, I think Celebrim and Crothian are pushing in the right direction - to define this is wrong and this is right is too precise. Ours is not a precise hobby, it never has been and it probably shouldn't be. To then precisely dictate right and wrong for every possible role-playing situation is, to be frank, ludicrous. While I see where you are going with your question, there are way too many variable to agree wholeheartedly with you.

 

[Dragonbait]

I recall a (verified true) story about a guy who would crap in his pants rather than leave the table during a game session, for fear that he'd miss out on something important. I could be wrong -- but I'm thinking that this is a horribly wrong way to roleplay. If you don't get up to relieve yourself during a game session, you're playing wrong.

zowie.. Well, that guys was clearly not right in the head rather than roleplaying incorrectly.

Edit: I didn't think there was a wrong way to roleplay (outside of attacking other players, pooping in one's pants, and the like) until I started reading things on the internet...