D&D General What are your reasons for doing something because "It's what my character would do"?

[Greg K]

Well, I have had two instances.
The first time involved me retiring my character after the GM had my character's reason for adventuring and the resulting situation created a situation where it made sense for him to retire.

The second involved the party (experienced adventurers) arriving at a new region and a town where a woman was about to be publicily executed. Her crime? She had stolen some bread and a few pieces of fruit to feed her family.

My character was a Monk from an Order that the GM established was sworn to protect the the innocent and downtrodden, fight for justice, etc. Therefore, I was not willing to have my character let the woman be executed for stealing food despite the rest of the party claiming to feel sorry for the woman, but did not want to get involved until we had learned more about this new place.

I turned to the GM and said that, given what he told me about the Order of my character, he would not standby and let the woman be executed for taking food to feed her family. He agreed that coming to the woman's aid was acting in character. So, I had my character don a large dark cloak, a scarf, and wide-brimmed hat to obscure his facial features and to prevent repurcussions on the other party members before approaching the front of the crowd and confronting the people running the execution

When persuasion and offering to pay for the stolen food did not work. My character fought off the guards and executioner and released her to the cheers of the gathered crowd.

Afterward, the party said they understood why I went to the woman's aid, but they could not travel with me as someone might have seen me with them prior to donning my "disguise".

The GM, however, was not willing to penalize me for taking action. For the next few sessions, he provided my character with situations to rescue people. My character became a popular masked vigilante working alone under the cover of the night until the GM finally was able to bring the party and my character back together.

 

[billd91]

The GM, however, was not willing to penalize me for taking action. For the next few sessions, he provided my character with situations to rescue people. My character became a popular masked vigilante working alone under the cover of the night until the GM finally was able to bring the party and my character back together.

Nice! Kudos to your GM for that.

 

[Yaarel]

Players can avoid playing characters that are jerks. Walking a mile in someone elses shoes, doesnt mean assuming that other person is inherently an obnoxious jackass.

 

[AlViking]

I think there may be times when there's a differences between wanting to play a character who's a coward, likely because they want some arc where said character overcomes that cowardice, and the player being risk-averse, basically not wanting to be in melee because that's a higher likelihood of being attacked = their character dying. I suppose you could call it being selfish in a team game.

I don't love those character arc ideas of "my character is a rude jerk who'll eventually come 'round to grudging acceptance of being part of the group" or "my character's a coward who'll eventually find that he needs to stand up and fight to make a difference" because you're likely putting the rest of the group through this whole pain in the arse months-long arc so you can hope to satisfy a narrative desire... unless they talk about it with the group first, and the group is OK with it. Though I also think that sort of thing pressures people to say "ok" rather than object to someone else's fun.. but they need to know that their fun is important too. Ugh. Sort of just makes everything more difficult.

Also, DnD generally has a lot of combat. It's probably not great to put your group at a disadvantage because a good portion of their team will be less effective... unless, I guess, the GM is in on it and either pulls punches or makes the game easier to account for the coward.

We had a player who did the whole "I'm going to be an antisocial jerk because my favorite anime character is one." But what works for a show and what works for a game are two different things. The DM talked to them after a few sessions and the player changed course, but that was a pretty extreme example.

On the other hand playing someone who never puts themself at risk is a bit of a different issue because unless they are literally running away from every fight there's a fine line between tactics and not working with the team. I used to play with a guy that would always play the caster type and always stayed in the back. They would complain and pout if they took any damage at all. But there's a reason they're in the "used to play with" category.

In any case, this is a bit of a tangent. Just an example of "It's what my character would do" that can make the game less fun for others without obviously being a jerk.

 

[Lanefan]

We've all heard the phrase. We've all heard the horror stories. Maybe we've used it ourselves.

How do you use it, and why?

For me, the answer is in the question: I have my character do what it would do because it's what the character would do.

And yes, that reasoning is about as circular as it gets.

Why? Because if I'm playing a character true to itself - which, IMO, should always be priority number one - then that in-character truth-to-self should take precedence over out-of-game considerations every time.

And this doesn't always mean being a jerk or having the character be nasty to the party etc. Sometimes playing a character true means sacrificing it to save the party, or role-playing it out of the party if the party have become too mercenary, and so on - because it's what the character would do.

 

[DammitVictor]

I only use the exact phrase as an ironic echo, because my characters are the ones that always carry alchemist's fire and sovereign glue to deal with 'Chaotic Neutral'.

"Well, I'm sorry, Phil... but when we caught your thief stealing from us after refusing to help us fight the monsters, it's just what my character would do."

Other than that? I don't justify in-character actions out-of-character. If your PC has a problem, address it in IC; if you have a problem with the way I'm playing my character, then my in-character excuses don't matter.

 

[Lanefan]

A lot of my issues when people use the "that's what my character would do!" reasoning is that while it might work for that one specific instance when they do something counter to the desires of the rest of the group... that reasoning when taken to its logical conclusion means the character should never have gotten to that point in the first place. Because they would have left the adventuring party or been thrown out by the others in the party much, much earlier.

Yes, and if that's what the other characters would have done then IMO they should bloody well have done it long since.

Just because a character is someone's PC doesn't and shouldn't make it immune to such things.

 

[AlViking]

I only use the exact phrase as an ironic echo, because my characters are the ones that always carry alchemist's fire and sovereign glue to deal with 'Chaotic Neutral'.

"Well, I'm sorry, Phil... but when we caught your thief stealing from us after refusing to help us fight the monsters, it's just what my character would do."

Other than that? I don't justify in-character actions out-of-character. If your PC has a problem, address it in IC; if you have a problem with the way I'm playing my character, then my in-character excuses don't matter.

If I had a fellow player and their character stole from me and justified it by "That's what my character would do" then I would feel entitled to tell them in character that I will no longer adventure with them. After all, "That's what my character would do."

 

[Lanefan]

I've got to admit ... I don't understand people who play characters that are cowards, especially when it's to the detriment of the other players or it's every single character they play. Because it seems like almost every time I play (I DM more than I play), I have to run a front line fighter type (even when it was a 2014 monk) because every other player is ranged attacks, the rogue that darts in and out of combat or some other variant who's entire goal in playing is to take as little damage as possible when it means all the attacks are always focused on a different character. Play the wizard who stands in the back sometimes? Cool, it makes sense the wizard doesn't want to be front line. Do it every single campaign? When is it my turn?

Anyway, sorry about the rant. It just kind of seems like some people sign up to be the equivalent of firefighters but only if they never have to get exposed to smoke, much less an actual burning building.

A lot of this might come down to the (expected or perceived) lethality of the campaign, and thus playing in survival-first mode.

As for "when is it your turn?" the answer is "Whenever you want it to be". Just because someone else rolls up a back-line wizard is no reason for you not to roll one up as well; and if the party ends up short of front-liners you can always go and recruit an NPC or hire a hench to fill that role.

 

[Lanefan]

If I had a fellow player and their character stole from me and justified it by "That's what my character would do" then I would feel entitled to tell them in character that I will no longer adventure with them. After all, "That's what my character would do."

Someone gets it!

Someone finally gets it!!!

What happens in character stays in character.

Separation of self and character is the key element here; that you and Bob at the table can laugh about his character's thieving and resulting expulsion from the party even while in the game your characters are plotting how to murder each other.