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

[Misanthrope Prime]

Remember, in the real world people go on killing sprees because they think a pizza parlor is harboring human traffickers, because they feel entitled to sex they're not getting, or simply because they "don't like mondays."

It's entirely realistic for flesh and blood human beings to act like a chaotic neutral "it's what my character would do" PC.

 

[Lanefan]

You took away that they were laughing about it afterwards?

They should be. Part of the point of playing is to be able to laugh at the crazy things the characters do, even if-when it's to each other.

 

[TiQuinn]

They should be. Part of the point of playing is to be able to laugh at the crazy things the characters do, even if-when it's to each other.

I don’t know what to say, man. Where you see fun hi-jinks that people can laugh off, I see someone just being a jerk at the table.

 

[TiQuinn]

Remember, in the real world people go on killing sprees because they think a pizza parlor is harboring human traffickers, because they feel entitled to sex they're not getting, or simply because they "don't like mondays."

It's entirely realistic for flesh and blood human beings to act like a chaotic neutral "it's what my character would do" PC.

Really, dude?

 

[Lanefan]

In a word: No. In a few more words: whether "but I'm just playing my character" is a sufficient justification or not for behavior depends a lot more on the relationship of the player to the group. I guarantee there are people who are just disruptive and will grief other players through their PCs because they're simply dicks.

Oh, sure.

What's different, perhaps, between my view and that of the general community is that I'm usually fine with so-called disruptive play as long as it stays in character, because if it's what the character would do then it's what the character should be doing.

If-when it comes out of character and starts causing arguments at the table, that's when the hammer comes down - but it comes down on the out-of-character arguing and-or metagaming, not the in-character actions. This includes if-when a player has a character act in ways not true to itself in order to push an out-of-game agenda, which is usually pretty obvious when it happens.

IMO by far the best place to solve in-character problems and issues is in character.

I should note that in all cases I'm assuming play among friends here who already know each other.

"I'm just playing my character" is never sufficient justification for that kind of behavior. Period.

I say it is if it suits in the moment the character being played.

Priority number one should be working with the other players and DM to make an enjoyable gaming experience. And that may take some kinds of characters off the table for that particular group and that particular campaign. That's being a responsible player. I have no time for irresponsible players at my table.

I disagree that any kind of character personality should ever be off the table, as in banned before it starts; because that's the DM telling me how to play my character which is something that, as a player, I find flat-out unacceptable. A DM tells me I can't play an evil character? Whether or not I had any intention of playing anything the least bit evil in that game, I tell that DM to sod off just on principle.

It's on the group in-character to decide what to do about the potentially-unwelcome addition to the party, which can often include denying the character admission to the party (round here it's Paladins usually get that reception, or close).

Long experience with such anything-goes campaigns tells me there's usually a very gonzo (and greatly entertaining for all!) shake-down period at the start, after which things largely tend to settle down.

 

[Distracted DM]

Oh, sure.

What's different, perhaps, between my view and that of the general community is that I'm usually fine with so-called disruptive play as long as it stays in character, because if it's what the character would do then it's what the character should be doing.

If-when it comes out of character and starts causing arguments at the table, that's when the hammer comes down - but it comes down on the out-of-character arguing and-or metagaming, not the in-character actions. This includes if-when a player has a character act in ways not true to itself in order to push an out-of-game agenda, which is usually pretty obvious when it happens.

IMO by far the best place to solve in-character problems and issues is in character.

I'm glad that some folk can enjoy playing this way- I've never been comfortable with it. It was never worth the stress, but I have some degree of social anxiety n' all that fun stuff.

I should note that in all cases I'm assuming play among friends here who already know each other.

That's definitely a big help, but resolving interparty conflict in-character has never sat well with me. Again, just my experience- I'd say yours is the exception, not the rule, but again I'm glad that it works for you.. I just wouldn't recommend it for everyone

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I don't. Ever. I roll a damned character that wants to be in a party and isn't an a%&h%&e, or if they are, they are a fully fleshed out character with positive traits alongside their flaws and aren't just a stat-stick for me to deal big damage and be an excuse to be a&%h&%e to the other players.

The only time that phrase has ever come up in play at our tables was used more akin to the DM asking "are you sure?" because one of us was choosing to do something that was obviously likely to get our character (and just our character) killed or backfire horribly.

Don't roll lone wolfs or pricks folks, they don't belong at a table.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Even worse is players building scout and tank as out types then playing that way to the point that squishies or uncoordinated drum set PC's wind up needing to take point for the group. I saw it shockingly often in My AL games.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

My character, recently and much simplified: "It is just possible that you are thinking of doing something that, by my allegiance, I absolutely cannot countenance. I'll be in my stateroom; let me know when you've finished not doing what I'm definitely not talking about."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Im far more likely to buy into this arc idea than the absolutist archetype. The absolutists are the types that just declare things like "Tobin the palladin destroys all undead" and they proceed to do so regardless of context even if it means the only result is essentially suicide for dear Tobin. Folks like this play essentially a one dimensional caricature instead of an actual character in the game setting.

On the other hand, sometimes GMs miss the signs that Charlie wants to play a palladin that gets to kill lots of undead. So, they either don't include any, or they set up a scenario where the players have to work with undead as allies all the time. Even worse, is sometimes GMs will do it on purpose to mess with an absolutist player.

However it plays out at the table, usually there is some break down of the out of character and in character communication in a way that is disruptive. Player or GM thinks they will fix/resolve the situation in game only. What makes "what my character would do" so powerful is that its not incorrect as far as role play goes, but it also doesnt mean its ok for you to be a butthole. YMMV.

For my part, it's just...I have seen so, so, so many instances of "but it's what my character would do!!!!" as a crap-awful excuse for crap-awful behavior from someone trying to weasel their way out of there being consequences for being a jerk to their fellow players. And It's worth noting, a GM's characters aren't totally immune from this. There's some expectation of opposition there, so there's more wiggle room. But a GM can absolutely also be a huge jerk claiming they had no choice!!, they HAD to have a crap-awful thing happen because "that's just how this world is" (as if the GM isn't responsible for that choice?), or "that's how this character would behave" (as if the GM isn't responsible for that behavior?) etc.

So, at least for me, justifying something by merely saying "it's what my character would do!!!" ain't gonna fly. If it really is "what your character would do"--as in, you "have no choice", you "have" to act that way--then justify it. Get me and others on board. If you can't do that, then who cares whether it would be out of character for your character? Seriously, who cares? You're justifying being a jerk with a flimsy excuse! Don't do that!

Characters can always begin to change. Maybe this is the moment that begins their process of change.