Disagree with Rule 3

[flatscan]

Ok, I agree with your first two rules. But the third is complete drek.

"D&D takes care of this by making sure characters are good or neutral. But I don't think that is truly enough. This is not a question of overlying beliefs. This is a question of will the character risk their life and livelihood to help another? This is about not being self-centered. This is about being someone that the party can trust when the ork dung hits the wind mill. This isn't something that you say during character description, it is something that you do and (hopefully) you do early on. If your character makes some sort of self sacrifice, even a small one, in the first session, the party is already on your side.

A lot of players don't like this rule, but it is the very last rule that I bend. We are roleplaying to be heroes, so design a hero or don't play. Every single hero in books and movies was intrinsically good at heart, no matter how otherwise messed up, or they weren't a hero. It is the definition."

And what exactly about "self-sacrifice" makes a hero? Can a character not be a greedy thief, who chooses to work with the party because he knows he'll get more loot than being on his own? He did help slay that dragon which was bi-monthly torching the surrounding villages, but he did it because he wanted a piece of the treasure hoard. And wait a sec, who said the point of RPing is to play a "hero" anyhow? I've been part of many an evil campaign that ran successfully because the party members knew that they couldn't achieve their goals on their own. You refer to movies and books for your definition of a hero. That's just ONE definition. Here's another from Dictionary.com:

"he·ro P Pronunciation Key (hîr)
n. pl. he·roes
1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods."

By your narrow definition, Robert E. Howards' Conan would not be a hero, because everything he did was self-centered.

[Antonidas]

Damn straight. I'd further suggest to ban such selfless heroes because the are unrealistic. No one gives blood to help a stranger. They do it because they're pressured by social standards and guilt ads. There are no people on Earth who can put another human being in front of their own needs. Groups form because survival instincts reward social interaction, similar to, but much less powerful than, the reproductive insticts that make people enjoy sex. Not because we like other people.

To add to that, if at any time a random people can have the character's morals and eithics described and reliably identify the protagonists and antagonists, then either the GM failed or you did. Either way, your game is shit.

[Emprint]

Not because we like other people.

I love other people. :D

[Karro]

Wow... such bile and vitriol. I thought most of that stuff stayed in those other fora. But I had a feeling when I was reading this that Rule 3 might cause some backlash. Regardless, the reaction seems a bit over-the-top.

But I'll throw my hat in by saying that I agree with the generalities of Rule 3, if not with the specific examples given. Frankly, the very idea of an "evil" campaign bores me; my mind and heart are most excited by the prospect of gallantry, heroism, and epic deeds, or in exploring the nature of our epic and mythic archetypes. And I know I am not alone--if the success of certain types of hollywood-blockbusters is any indication, your average-joe American prefers heroic stories as well.

But what constitutes a hero, or what it means to be "good at heart" I think can be more loosely defined than by using the single metric of "self-sacrifice" as it is typically meant--that being of putting one's self in harm's way or mortal danger for the benefit of another. But I suspect that your average person really is "good at heart", and willing to give up something good of their own for the good of another, but the threshold often stops short of harm's way. Sometimes, this small sacrifice is nothing more than doing something nice for someone, or saying a kind word. What frequently separates our mythic heroes from our every-day heroes is the degree to which they are willing to go out of their way to help others, but even the culturalization, socialization, and succumbing to "survival instincts" that "reward social interaction" lends itself readily and easily to heroic action. Whether from a deeper human understanding of the nature of good, or from millenia of socialization and survival, a mother who sacrifices herself for her child is frequently viewed as noteworthy and praiseworthy, and murder and larceny nigh-universally condemnable.

To cite a given example, even the thief that slays the dragon for the express purpose of gaining a share of the horde still qualifies as Heroic under this definition. Battling a dragon typically is no cake-walk--that thief has put himself in the mother-of-all-mortal-perils, knowing full-well that he may very well die for what he is doing, and that if he succeeds the town will be saved. That his underlying motivation is his greed only highlights the humanity and heroism of his deed. In fact, this leads very easily to the almost cliched situation where the victorious thief then tries downplay the enormity of what he has done, in the face of the adulation of his benefactees, and then grows to harbor a secret happiness and pride for having saved the day, while continuing to insist that he's nothing more than a greedy thief. While his baser intentions may normally be held in contempt, they are eclipsed by the magnitude of his more laudable self-sacrifice, and this is what will be remembered about him.

And even self-serving heroes, like Conan, who quest for glory and fortune are well-remembered because their actions become metaphors for the socializing and culturalizing forces that created these heroes. We sense that there is some underlying motive force that create these icons, and they become the archetypes and paragons of certain qualities or characteristics that we find admirable. Conan, for instance, is independent and strong-willed. He makes his own fortune, and from what I've seen of the movies (having not read any of the books) he's willing to uphold and defend the weak, or at least tolerates them, and respects strength.

Anyway... YMMV

[Morat]

I disagree with rule 3 as well but from a different point of view. If the games we are talking about are heroic fantasy, or spy or whatever where the main protagoniststs generally hold up the rule of law, then this is a decent rule. However take something like the gangster genre, where the protagonists are generally out to sieze power from others. This guys are generally not good at heart, and are frequently totally the opposite, out for power above all else. Basically what I am saying is that it is possible to have characers who are selfish and arrogant work together, and it creates a different type of conflict within a party then the standard D&D group.
Cheers
Iain

[gschneider]

I am certainly coming up with my own definition of hero, something along the lines of "someone who takes action for the good of the whole for what is likely personal loss."

In fact, in my daily life I would define hero as exactly that sort of person that Antonidas says doesn't exist. certainly they are rare, and maybe, just maybe that is why society calls them heros.

Remember - no one is a hero unless the society dubs them so. That might be any even better definition.

And it is likely the rarity of those people makes us want to play them in fantasy games. (Although, I'll admit, I'd like to be one in real life, just the choices are a lot harder.)

I have the same issue as Karro with Conan - I've only seen the movie. (There was only one, really.) But I would venture to say that Conan was written as a solo-adventure, and the rules are certainly different in that situation.

Sure, being Conan would be fun. But would you have wanted to be in a campaign with Conan?

But when it boils down to it, rule 3 is about trust. Lack of trust in groups always leads to backstabbing, arguing, lack of cohesion and. ironically, power-gaming. If you find those things fun, then you are already a step ahead of me with your characters.

And the rules don't gaurantee fun, just like fun without them is sure possible. What they do is "play the odds". These are the things that will generally make better campaigns - a set of guidelines for those in need of help. If you already make great characters and have great campaigns, why are you reading campaign advice columns?

Okay, that was rhetorical. Your reading advice columns because your active interest to always improve allows you to assimilate new knowledge into your existing expertise, take the few bits you need and chuck the rest. That's how you get better, after all.

Anyway, I looked up "Drek" in my dictionary and couldn't find a definition. So I'll go with "Wizard poop"

Greg
(I know, I am wordy. . .that's why I decided to write a column. . .)

[flatscan]

"But I'll throw my hat in by saying that I agree with the generalities of Rule 3, if not with the specific examples given. Frankly, the very idea of an "evil" campaign bores me; my mind and heart are most excited by the prospect of gallantry, heroism, and epic deeds, or in exploring the nature of our epic and mythic archetypes. And I know I am not alone--if the success of certain types of hollywood-blockbusters is any indication, your average-joe American prefers heroic stories as well."

Ok, the idea of an evil campaign bores you. And I should play your style instead of mine because? My point was not that everyone should play evil, just the opposite. My point was that rules for character creation should not limit what type of morals a character should have. There is great potential for RP with a group of evil or mixed characters. It may not be your bag, that's cool. But the statement the article's author makes about not RPing if you don't wanna play a goody-goody is completely ignorant of the potential for RP.

Your next paragraph about "good at heart" vs. self-serving grossly misidentifies what it means to be self-serving. There is a difference between me doing everything in my power to better my own life and serve my interests than doing so at the cost of others. Me going to college to get a better paying job is completely self-serving. This is rational and explicitly not evil. Me knifing my boss in an alley to get his job is completely evil and I'm not sure it is self-serving as I would be on the run for the rest of my days and wouldn't get the job because of this. I don't believe you have to be "altruistic" to be moral or heroic.

"To cite a given example, even the thief that slays the dragon for the express purpose of gaining a share of the horde still qualifies as Heroic under this definition. Battling a dragon typically is no cake-walk--that thief has put himself in the mother-of-all-mortal-perils, knowing full-well that he may very well die for what he is doing, and that if he succeeds the town will be saved. That his underlying motivation is his greed only highlights the humanity and heroism of his deed. In fact, this leads very easily to the almost cliched situation where the victorious thief then tries downplay the enormity of what he has done, in the face of the adulation of his benefactees, and then grows to harbor a secret happiness and pride for having saved the day, while continuing to insist that he's nothing more than a greedy thief. While his baser intentions may normally be held in contempt, they are eclipsed by the magnitude of his more laudable self-sacrifice, and this is what will be remembered about him."

I disagree that there is any self-sacrifice whatsoever in this scenario. He wants great riches. Great riches are protected by a dragon. He gets together with a bunch of people who want to slay the dragon for various reasons knowing they'll bring him closer to his goal. The fanfare for their success is icing on the cake.

"Conan, for instance, is independent and strong-willed. He makes his own fortune, and from what I've seen of the movies (having not read any of the books) he's willing to uphold and defend the weak, or at least tolerates them, and respects strength."

Yes, Conan is independent and strong-willed. REH's Conan (not the movies) respected strength greatly. The only "weak" that he defended were women, and that was because he was hoping to bed them afterward. Yet his actions led to great good. The defeat of Xoltutan in "Hour of the Dragon" benifitted entire nations. But this is not the reason he killed him. He did so to regain his kingdom, a completely self-serving action.

For the record, I like people, but I take it on an individual basis. Just because you exist does not mean I should have to sacrifice for you. Nor would I ask you to sacrifice yourself for me. Each individual is a means to their own ends, not the means to others.

[DrunkenEwok]

But the third is complete drek.I think you're overstating the problem just a bit.

From my perspective, the rule isn't so much about "what makes a hero" as it is "what makes a good rpg hero." While I'm sure that you can find infinite examples of anti-social and self-serving heroes throughout both literature and history, the simple fact is that role-playing is a social activity, and as such must make some concessions to a social contract in order for everyone to enjoy the game.

Evil campaigns are a notable example, in that everyone involved should have agreed to play an evil character, and they have come up with some set of plausible reasons why they continue to work together. But if Cruella the Witch doesn't have at least some incentive (however minuscule) to set aside her own immediate needs in order to help Dirk Dastardly in his latest plot, then they really aren't forming a group at all. Thus Cruella is evincing at least some measure of that self-sacrificing nature embodied in Rule #3, even if it's only because she needs Dirk's help finishing her latest potion or because Dirk is holding her familiar hostage.

The whole point of the article is that a character should be designed with the fun of the entire group in mind, rather than one's own visceral enjoyment of loosing the shackles of moral society. If the greedy rogue can't be trusted under at least some circumstances, there's absolutely no reason to keep him around, and he becomes a liability to the party that they are forced to endure merely because he's a PC. Forcing the other players to forego their characters' common sense in order to accede to your need to play a money-grubbing untrustworthy scoundrel is the height of real-world selfishness, and is likely to lead to hard feelings.

And it's important to note that a character doesn't have to be completely self-effacing to still fit into the guidelines of rule #3. If the greedy rogue can be counted on in any serious crisis, even if it's only in his own best interest, it's still possible for him to be a useful member of the group. Conan is an excellent example of a self-serving but ultimately trustworthy hero, and Jayne Cobb (Firefly/Serenity) is another more contemporary example. You don't have to play the saintly stick-up-the-rear paladin in order to conform to rule #3.

However take something like the gangster genre, where the protagonists are generally out to sieze power from others. This guys are generally not good at heart, and are frequently totally the opposite, out for power above all else.I beg to differ. The gangsters in question may have a unified goal of acquiring power above all else, but based on the movies I've seen, there is a great deal of emphasis placed on loyalty among the group. If Rocco is captured by the feds, can the rest of the group trust him not to rat them out? It's certainly in Rocco's best interest to sing like a canary, to reduce his own sentence and gain more opportunity to garner power. Can Rocco trust his friends to bust him out of the slammer at their earliest opportunity? It's certainly in their best interest to leave him there, so he doesn't get a cut of the loot and they don't risk their skins. Based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge of gangster lore, the gangsters in these situations would take decidedly self-sacrificing actions in these circumstances.

If you look at Rule #3 as a guideline and not a straight-jacket, it makes a lot of sense no matter what genre you're playing.

To add to that, if at any time a random people can have the character's morals and eithics described and reliably identify the protagonists and antagonists, then either the GM failed or you did. Either way, your game is shit.So because the author chooses to espouse a particular style of play that doesn't agree with your world view, he and everyone who holds the same view is a failure and all their efforts are utter garbage? Way to keep an open mind. :)

Personally, I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of campaigns I've been involved in during my 15+ year gaming career would have at least a 50/50 chance of identifying the protagonists/antagonists from a simple description of their morals/ethics, and in most cases closer to 75-90%. So by your estimate, I'm an utter failure as a GM and a player? Based on that one solitary variable? Playing RPGs as an anti-hero is definitely a laudable play-style, but I hardly think that it's the only style worth exploring.

[dbisdorf]

I think it depends on the group. If you have a group of players who roleplay together well and who have a good trust relationship, you can absolutely have a good time playing mixed alignments or all "evil" characters. My group had a blast playing a group of VIPER agents in a Champions campaign.

But if you are GM'ing to a new group, or to players whose style you aren't sure of, allowing "evil" or selfish characters can potentially lead to a train wreck. All it takes is a couple of players taking their characters way too seriously to turn an otherwise excellent opportunity for roleplaying into a total campaign shutdown.

I think it takes a certain level of maturity to roleplay in-party struggles without letting it get out of hand. You have to be willing to go with the drama, to not take the roleplay personal, and above all, you have to be willing to lose (because in a conflict of interest between two characters, something has to give).

I think that rule 3 makes for a good safety net for your campaign, but if your players have the right stuff, and everyone is up for it, rule 3 can certainly be dispensed with.

Incidentally I do tend to use rule 3 myself just because I like my PC heroes to be good guys (though not necessarily nice guys, which is an important distinction). Sure, it may not be "realistic", as other posters have pointed out. But I figure realism went out the window as soon as we start casting fireball spells or travelling in FTL spacecraft, so what's a little extra unrealism?

All IMHO of course.

[Walter S Ciechanowski]

Allow a fellow RPG.net columnist to weigh in here.

First of all, very interesting column! It's a very promising start and I'll be eagerly awaiting the next one (you actually beat me to the punch on a topic I'd considered for my own column!).

At the risk of parroting others, I think Rule #3 is better titled as "The character must be good at heart or be ready to accept the consequences."

Obviously, if the GM wishes to run a campaign about good heroes, then a selfish PC with no redeeming qualities would be as fitting as a Japanese samurai in a campaign set in Norman England. The GM should outlaw the concept as a matter of course, since the concept is outside the parameters of his campaign.

If a player is allowed to play a selfish PC, then he should be ready to accept the consequences and those consequences should be real. "Well, he's a PC" should never be the justification as to why someone is allowed to stay in a group if his actions warrant expulsion. If they do, then he should be expelled.

That said, there are fun and legitmate campaign styles that lack heroes. Take Noir, for example. There are no heroes, only protagonists. These protagonists often have an Achilles' Heel that could threaten other PCs, but it's an established part of the genre. Everyone who plays in a Noir campaign should accept that. Similarly, Vampire: the Masquerade (I'm unfamiliar with the current Requiem) poses the same issue. Vampires (generally) aren't heroes, and they band together for mutual protection and to keep an eye on each other. Ironically, one of the accusations leveled against many V:TM campaigns was that the PCs forgot they were monsters and simply played as sunlight-sensitive superheroes.

Walt

[SteelCaress]

I know in an essentially "good" campaign group I played a ruthless smooth-talking rogue.

I didn't steal from other party members, I didn't threaten anyone in the party, and in large part I ignored the d20 ruleset because it didn't fit my needs. I killed one man in cold blood because he wouldn't turn back the tide of zombies he'd created. I was neutral evil, and was able to sit down and parley with "the Empire" that was taking over our homeland because I was able to make them see I was self-serving, and therefore they could tell me what their Empire could do for me. Understanding your enemies is half the battle.

Mind you, I didn't tell anyone what was going on. No one got to look at my character sheet, and I wasn't very obviously secret. (No constant handing of notes to the GM). There was one mage who didn't trust me, and he was so hotheaded and convincing I'm not sure it didn't extend out of character -- i.e., did his player even trust my character?

So, in keeping with the spirit of Rule 3, we can say that I could be counted on when the chips were down, but by the same token I realized having the party around could save my bacon. And I could gain influence and power by placing myself in key positions, to gain the ear of the King (and retire comfortably and securely rich). One player was horribly wounded when I confided OOC that my character was not a nice guy, nor was particularly his friend. It was a definite change of pace from the guy with a heart of gold I usually end up playing.

[Karro]

Ok, the idea of an evil campaign bores you. And I should play your style instead of mine because? My point was not that everyone should play evil, just the opposite. My point was that rules for character creation should not limit what type of morals a character should have. There is great potential for RP with a group of evil or mixed characters. It may not be your bag, that's cool. But the statement the article's author makes about not RPing if you don't wanna play a goody-goody is completely ignorant of the potential for RP.

Your next paragraph about "good at heart" vs. self-serving grossly misidentifies what it means to be self-serving. There is a difference between me doing everything in my power to better my own life and serve my interests than doing so at the cost of others. Me going to college to get a better paying job is completely self-serving. This is rational and explicitly not evil. Me knifing my boss in an alley to get his job is completely evil and I'm not sure it is self-serving as I would be on the run for the rest of my days and wouldn't get the job because of this. I don't believe you have to be "altruistic" to be moral or heroic.

"To cite a given example, even the thief that slays the dragon for the express purpose of gaining a share of the horde still qualifies as Heroic under this definition. Battling a dragon typically is no cake-walk--that thief has put himself in the mother-of-all-mortal-perils, knowing full-well that he may very well die for what he is doing, and that if he succeeds the town will be saved. That his underlying motivation is his greed only highlights the humanity and heroism of his deed. In fact, this leads very easily to the almost cliched situation where the victorious thief then tries downplay the enormity of what he has done, in the face of the adulation of his benefactees, and then grows to harbor a secret happiness and pride for having saved the day, while continuing to insist that he's nothing more than a greedy thief. While his baser intentions may normally be held in contempt, they are eclipsed by the magnitude of his more laudable self-sacrifice, and this is what will be remembered about him."

I disagree that there is any self-sacrifice whatsoever in this scenario. He wants great riches. Great riches are protected by a dragon. He gets together with a bunch of people who want to slay the dragon for various reasons knowing they'll bring him closer to his goal. The fanfare for their success is icing on the cake.

"Conan, for instance, is independent and strong-willed. He makes his own fortune, and from what I've seen of the movies (having not read any of the books) he's willing to uphold and defend the weak, or at least tolerates them, and respects strength."

Yes, Conan is independent and strong-willed. REH's Conan (not the movies) respected strength greatly. The only "weak" that he defended were women, and that was because he was hoping to bed them afterward. Yet his actions led to great good. The defeat of Xoltutan in "Hour of the Dragon" benifitted entire nations. But this is not the reason he killed him. He did so to regain his kingdom, a completely self-serving action.

For the record, I like people, but I take it on an individual basis. Just because you exist does not mean I should have to sacrifice for you. Nor would I ask you to sacrifice yourself for me. Each individual is a means to their own ends, not the means to others.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that I had the "one true way". But as general advice, if you're not playing in an "evil" campaign, but playing a generic "heroic" or "epic" campaign, the stated advice is more or less good advice. I would agree that certain genres may require more flexible interpretations of such "rules".

On that... just what do you do in an evil campaign to keep each of the characters from killing each other outright? Allow me only this single moment of idle curiosity. It is the nature of this problem itself (not just the back-stabbing, but implied competition between parties, even if forced by circumstance to temporarily cooperate) that makes me shrug at evil campaigns and say "meh".

I don't mean to mis-characterize the nature of self-serving. By your way, at its heart almost all altruistic actions, except the most extreme examples (like an actual mortal sacrifice, or maybe a few other slightly less extreme examples) are self-serving. Almost anything that benefits society as a whole can also benefit the self. I don't mean to characterize self-serving actions as objectionably evil, but there are certain actions that are almost universally condemnable as such.

And I agree that the degree to which an individual is willing to make a sacrifice, however great or small, is largely dependent on the specific circumstances. I read a theory about the "monkey sphere" once which, whether I agree with it or not, I would agree that for the most part it becomes progressively less likely that an individual would give anything up the farther out from one's "monkey sphere" the other might be.

Anyway, I stand by my assessment of the greedy thief. You are correct that the results of the action are irrelevant in analyzing the action itself. Anytime one manages significant risk in this way, one is accepting the possibility of sacrifice. I may leverage my current position at work, and plan for the future, so that I can have a better job, a higher salary, and more security and comfort when I'm older. Doing so may require me to give up certain amenities now, or even expose myself to a high degree of risk and the possibility of significant loss in the near future in order to secure gains in the farther future. But then again, that's only how I understand making a self-sacrifice. By that way of thinking, even if the thief is only thinking of his future prosperity, he knows full well that he has to risk significant loss, in the form of possibly losing his life, in order to get it. If he were completely motivated only by his baser instincts, he'd probably make his living stealing things that aren't gaurded by anything so dangerous as a dragon. I say probably because I'm sure someone could come up with an example of a character who goes beyond that, but it seems, in my estimation, the more likely course.

Like a later poster mentioned, I'm not advocating a play style where everyone plays paladin-like characters of absolute moral rectitude. But being good at heart, even if for all the wrong reasons, seems a pretty normal way of looking at characters in RPGs. It certainly makes things easier for group cohesion if the characters in the group can agree to and share a set of common goals.

[gschneider]

Why do you think it is that RPGA outlaws evil characters?

Greg

[JA_Reave]

Heh, I disagree with just about all of these.

Rule 1: The character must work in a group
-What about games where characters are rivals or competitors?

Rule 2: The character must be fun for the player and the rest of the party
-This one is just too obvious. If something isn't fun, why are you playing in the first place?

Rule 3: The character must be good at heart
-Uh....no he musn't. Even in a "generic"/"heroic" campaign.

Rule 4: The character must have a reason to go adventuring
-Why must a character "go" anywhere? Never played a campaign where you've had to defend something from outside invaders?

Rule 5: The character must fit the campaign style
-No. The campaign style should fit the characters.

Rule 6: The character must have long term goals
-Especially in short term, one session RPGs, right?

I don't know for sure, but it strikes me that you have played very few RPGs in general, and very very few if any non-traditional RPGs. What you have to say is applicable in some situations and totally not in others. If you're going to proffer such advice, I suggest narrowing the scope of your essays to specific games.

JAR

[gschneider]

At least, the seven rules for creating characters in a campaign setting. (That is, where there is a group of more then one person, and there are going to be multiple adventures with the characters.)

JAR - What would you consider to be a non-traditional RPG?

Greg

[JA_Reave]

Ars Magica
Amber Diceless
Sorcerer
Dogs in the Vineyard
Castle Faulkenstien
Burning Wheel
Polaris
Breaking the Ice
Noblis
Universalis
Multiverser
Capes
The Pool
Code of Unaris
Dust Devils
And plenty, plenty more. And no, I won't engage on a point by point debate on any of them. Take the list as thou wilt.

JAR

[jafuli]

Well, I just want to make a quick comment about this thread, just using one example, d20 if you want :

A game of Throne, using the new sourcebook or just the novels themselves. Imagine a party, like a knight and his/her suite. They are more family/politically/religiously committed than a reference to good/evil.
In due course, they will certainly have to make 'bad things', in absolute coherency to their allegiance. And there will be tension between party members. And all this make for superb role-playing.

So aren't your rules just a definition of a kind of role playing, rather than, well, rules ?

thank you !
JF

[gschneider]

I think I did make a mistake in the column by not being more clear that what I was attempting was to define "rules" for the more traditional campaign. And by traditonal, I do not mean system specific, but yet more in the generic design of having a group and going adventuring. There are a lot of ways to bend and form that "traditional" role-playing, but in the end it is about a bunch of characters working together.

In general, I try and avoid systems in my discussions. The one exception is D&D due to the fact that many of its terms have become mainstays of the role-playing vernacular. D&D terms are likely to reach the larger audience.

Also, for anyone interested, you read my short bio (http://www.blackshieldgaming.com/info/Home/Bios/tabid/53/Default.aspx).

[Antonidas]

I love how half the people here are saying that self-serving characters can't make a good RPG group. Has anyone here heard of White Wolf? The whle point of Vampire was be an inhuman monster with a pretty much forgeone conclusion of fucking your friends over in the end, but did this cause any group friction or anti-social behavior? No, and I'll add that WW games generally have more cooperation than almost an other games I've played.

[Walter S Ciechanowski]

Umm, yes, I have heard of WW. You did read my post? LOL

I agree with you. My experiences with Vampire are pre-Requiem, but one of the things that makes Vampire groups work is mutual protection from the Sabbat, Hunters, Werewolves, etc.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" (at least for the moment).

Walt

[The McK]

The greatest mistake the author made was mistitling his column. "Creating Better Characters" implies that he knows The One True Way, which can piss off a lot of people all by itself. Then he dropped the "Good guys only" bomb, and the shades-of-gray pulled out their daggers (poisoned, of course).

So what would have been a better title? How about "Creating Easier Characters"? Well, okay, not that. But something like it! "Creating Characters That Are Easier To Play", say.

"Characters that are easy to play" sounds bad. It probably brings to mind elementary school, playing yourself with a 17 Dexterity and a portable hole, making fart jokes and flipping the bird to the king because what's the DM gonna do, he's your best friend. One of the more untouchable sacred cows of roleplaying is that we must evolve from this interchangeable state to one in which player and character have only the loosest connection, in which they have entirely different motivations, personalities, and ethics. And somewhere along that line it occurs that, since the player is presumably not an evil, psychotic loner bastard, the character should be one! Hey, instant differentiation! (A certain debt is probably also owed to powergaming and/or just wanting to leave your useless teammate behind). And there's nothing wrong with that. If the character you play is evil, if he doesn't care about others, and everyone else (including the GM) is fine with that, great.

But he might not fine with that. Because he's got a life, see. And he has a story he'd like to tell. And every time you backstab your buddy, every time you decide you'd rather stay home than save the world, every time you kill a helpless prisoner, you take away from both of those. You're making more work for him, you're making the game less fun for the other players (who are bending their character personalities in order to put up with you and keep you in the group), you're causing arguments, and for what? So you can be the bad guy. Because that's realistic.

There are, doubtless, GMs who love this. Who thrive on intraparty conflict and unpleasantness. And there are game systems for these kinds of players (although Paranoia is the only one I've actually played). And I tip my hat to the GM who could keep a group of cutthroats with a thousand reasons to kill each other from doing so, without resorting to fiats and railroading. But most GMs I've played with haven't been able to cope with it. I know I haven't. Running a game is hard enough without having to worry that A will let B die just because there's nothing in it for him.

In fairness, I've never seen the appeal of playing an evil character. I want to save babies from burning hospitals and punch Hitler in the face. Because I know that in the real world I'm cowardly, weak-willed, and indecisive, and I love the idea of creating a story about someone better than me. And my GMs seem to like it too.

An evil character, well-played, can be a great addition to a game. Poorly played, it will be a millstone around everyone's neck. And even if you're sure you have the chops to pull it off, please, talk to your GM about it. Because he's the one who's really going to have to pay for your sins.

[sothgiedd]

>>Damn straight. I'd further suggest to ban such selfless heroes because the are unrealistic. No one gives blood to help a stranger. They do it because they're pressured by social standards and guilt ads. There are no people on Earth who can put another human being in front of their own needs. Groups form because survival instincts reward social interaction, similar to, but much less powerful than, the reproductive insticts that make people enjoy sex. Not because we like other people.<<

Agenda much?

I can think of several other competing theories that match reality as well as this one. I can think of specific instances just within my group of friends that completely fail to prove this idea, and in fact disprove it as a universal guideline.

You may be happy to believe that there is no good in this world, hell, you might even be right, but I am in no way convinced that that should have a damn thing to do with how people behave in fictional games.

I think the author is basically saying that you need to build characters who are willing to work with others without knifing them during a bored moment. They need to be basically decent, or at least have some redeeming aspect to their otherwise hack'n'slash personas.

A gangster game could be really cool, but it wouldn't be Mafia proper without deep moral concerns and an overriding love for the family. Not just Family as in the Mob, but family as in the character's wives, husbands, children, uncles, aunts, etc.

Actually, on further consideration, I think the author is requesting that characters be somewhat *human*. Not psycopathic monsters or amoral killers.

Even Vampire, the favorite monster game, is ultimately about struggling to stay human, despite being a beast. When your character has not even a scrap of humanity left, you can't play him anymore.

[flump]

If the character you play is evil, if he doesn't care about others, and everyone else (including the GM) is fine with that, great.

But he might not fine with that. Because he's got a life, see. And he has a story he'd like to tell. And every time you backstab your buddy, every time you decide you'd rather stay home than save the world, every time you kill a helpless prisoner, you take away from both of those. You're making more work for him, you're making the game less fun for the other players (who are bending their character personalities in order to put up with you and keep you in the group), you're causing arguments, and for what? So you can be the bad guy. Because that's realistic.

There are, doubtless, GMs who love this. Who thrive on intraparty conflict and unpleasantness. And there are game systems for these kinds of players (although Paranoia is the only one I've actually played). And I tip my hat to the GM who could keep a group of cutthroats with a thousand reasons to kill each other from doing so, without resorting to fiats and railroading. But most GMs I've played with haven't been able to cope with it. I know I haven't. Running a game is hard enough without having to worry that A will let B die just because there's nothing in it for him.


I found this whole argument so compelling that I went and registered in order to post. Please don't flame me if I don't follow correct ettiquette or something ;)

This arguement has been doing the rounds in Larp for some time. There, it's called the debate between "player generated" plot, or "story led" plot. I tend to be on the "player generated" side, which basically says that you get better roleplay, and a more fun experience, if you let the players go off the tracks of the story the GM intends, and just be in character, regardless of where it ends. It's not a 100% thing - just that it tends to be more immersive.

It's like writing a novel. Roger Zelazny, in an introduction to Empire of the East says that there are 2 ways of writing a novel...

a) plot it out in advance, then write it.
b) start with the characters, and see what they do.

Any role-playing session has a blend of a and b, but the more you go down the line to b, and don't mind the story getting totally re-written, the more you can allow the players to play the whole gamut of personality types.

For me, I love playing evil characters and as a GM love running evil campaigns. A night where the players spend the time plotting against each other, or against some larger force, but not trusting each other, can be great role-play.

To give one final example of why I don't agree with the rule - it would make Amber diceless (which is my favorite rpg) unplayable. It's predicated on the fact that the players each have their own selfish agendas, and don't trust each other more than they have to.

[gschneider]

I love Amber, but it certainly falls no where near traditional group role-playing.

In most traditional games, as stated, the GM provides the main conflict for the party. In a true character driven game (where the GM stays the better part out of the way) the conflict has to be generated by the PCs - against one another, usually.

We did an Amber throne war for my bachelor party and (I guess it must have been that friendly wedding atmosphere) everyone made actual nice characters, and we just kind of "wandered off" into a half-developed plot of the GMs. Not half as exciting as the throne wars were we have been at each others throats and have had player deaths every half-hour. (Or the one where the trump master killed everybody else even though he was the first character to die. . .)

You see a lot of these on-line as well, where people need to play the evil as well as the good so that there is conflict and the story can move forward. As mentioned above, this is almost essential in LARPing, as there is way too much going on for the GM to actively moderate the conflict.

Greg

[Something Else]

I personally am of the Joss Whedon imitation school of roleplaying, and so am certainly in favor of allowing evil characters. What I think is important is that the evil character can work with the group. This is done very easily.

I don't think it's usually a good idea to have PURE evil characters in the group, or have largely non-good characters, at least in most campaigns. But an evil character or two can't (usually) hurt.

[Bartmoss]

Heh, I disagree with just about all of these.

Rule 1: The character must work in a group
-What about games where characters are rivals or competitors?

Rule 2: The character must be fun for the player and the rest of the party
-This one is just too obvious. If something isn't fun, why are you playing in the first place?

Rule 3: The character must be good at heart
-Uh....no he musn't. Even in a "generic"/"heroic" campaign.

Rule 4: The character must have a reason to go adventuring
-Why must a character "go" anywhere? Never played a campaign where you've had to defend something from outside invaders?

Rule 5: The character must fit the campaign style
-No. The campaign style should fit the characters.

Rule 6: The character must have long term goals
-Especially in short term, one session RPGs, right?

I don't know for sure, but it strikes me that you have played very few RPGs in general, and very very few if any non-traditional RPGs. What you have to say is applicable in some situations and totally not in others. If you're going to proffer such advice, I suggest narrowing the scope of your essays to specific games.

JAR

My responses.

1. Because in a traditional RPG campaign the party co-operates.

- Also I am tired of inter party conflict, it was fun from about 20-23, but then one day I just got annoyed at players who killed other characters.

2. I have met people who do not realise that their character should be fun for other players. Fun for themselves yes. So it is only obvious to those of us who have concern for other peoples fun.

3. This is a personal belief thing. In traditional heoric fantasy the character should be "good at heart". Otherwise you are probably rescuing the beautiful princess for personal gain. It may be you marry her, take over the kingdom, she hates your evil soul. But you have kids with her? Thats a nasty evil bastard you have created there and I dont want them in my game!

4. You must have a reason to leave your home, or even protect your neighbourhood.

- I am currently about to start a game in which the characters must have a desire to better themselves. At the start they are poor down at heel street urchins - essentially. If they did not wish to improve their lot in life then they would not risk their lives in the way that I intend them to risk it. In fact if they did not have the gumption I want the charaters to have then in the opening scene for one player their reaction should be

"Yes Mr Broadstairs what ever you say...I have been bad and will never ever do that again"

And create a new character.

Trust me- being able to resist Mr Broadstairs after he kills three of your friends, one who is eviscerated in front of you requires gumption. And a stand up fight will just get you dead.

5. It depends what comes first. If I describe my campaign to people. Here we have an example.

- The game is set in a poor neighbourhood, its the only one you have ever known but you have pride in it, most people do. However you want more from your life than just the odd scrap you can get from the hard work at the orphanage. The thing is you do not want to hurt your neighbours. Its a bleak moral world out there and easy life is to join one of the gangs, but the gangs are the reason you are an orphan.

I then tell my players a little more about the neighbourhood and we build characters and theme together.

Its give and take. Initially I want my players to think within the paramaters of my setting. Then we will mould and change together. However even now just before I start the game 99% of my setting is as it was at the begining they have created characters to fit my campaign idea. And no one thought it evil or wrong of me.

If I asked for characters. For a modern setting game I would expect my players to say.

"What will be be doing?"

6. This does depend on the length of the game I agree. But be fair he was not discussing one shots.

I can make his "rules" fit every game I have ever run - looking back if people had thought about these rules when designing characters then the game would have worked better.

Example

Years ago I ran a Cyberpunk style game set in California. It was always going to be hard for the players. I told them this at the outset. I asked for characters that were messed up by a war (similar to vietnam in tone) or people who had railed against the war (disidents) or just plain folks who had been on the make. However I stressed the same thing - "we are a group of players in a game we will eventualy be playing as a group".

However I never stressed people be likeable.

One player brought me a trully messed up war veteran. At one point in the game he had managed to get into debt with a local mafia boss and no one could help him out. None of the group had money. But there was an out. There had been this young woman in the neighbourhood getting people together and forming a union at the local factory, she was even getting local media backing (through another PC who was in fact playing a media character). The corporation wanted her dealt with, not killed, just marked. You see this young woman was stunning, and charismatic, its why she came over so well on the TV. The war vet took a job and cut the girl up and scared her face for life...he was so brutal that when she was seen by her media friend she got really depressed and very quikcly after wards killed herself. The union was destroyed and people lost their jobs and others hired with worse conditions than before.

The war vet realised what he had done. He locked himself away for a while. Reflected. Started working with another PC who took jobs helping other war vets settle down or fighting the good fight against the evil corps.

This character was fast becoming one of the types of characters I would hope developed as the game went on. He realised how terrible he had been and realised how bad his actions had affected the local community and realised that those evil bastards in the corps needed him to do these things. So he was going to get them. You see he realised who he really was. He was at heart good. Its just he was scared of the mafia and a bit fucked up after the war.

The other player. Who had been playing the media really well for ages got bored with the character. Primarily because he thought the others were having more fun than him. However he brought in what the columnist was talking about the Ninja Assassin who hated everyone and the world. I foolishly allowed it because I did not really see it coming. His sell to me was "I want to find out who hurt Kate (the girl who killed herself) the locals have banded together and got me to see who did it". Ok I thought.

Ha...no chance. He killed two PCs within the first session because "I am an evil guy and have no morals". He was just doing this to have his own fun. It was all funny to him. He thought that the NPC Kate and been harmed by the other player to de-rail his fun, but that was not the case. However everything this "ninja" was doing was done just to have self centred enjoyment.

Truly evil characters do not work for group fun. At least not in my experience.

[Maarzan]

Is the problem really with beinmg evil or rather with (from the group point of view) antisocial backstabbing bastards?

Imagine a paladin in a group of survivors about to be grinded in a multi faction war in a gritty survival campaign, trying to impose his good ideals on his comrades, like sharing meager provisions with (probably even more starving) strangers, demanding proper codes of combat and turning in other characters for their deeds on occassions where there is a rest of administartive order.

Pure good on the paper he creates the same feelings - or worse - than the thief.

On the other hand an evil character can be quite popular as long as he is a positive contribution, no one else has to fear an untimely end (probably by accepting the leadership of the evil one, or because the evil one masks well ) and no goody wants to put an example when he identifies him as evil.

I think it is much more group dynamics than alignment.

[yoacusna]

I too thoroughly disagree with rule 3. It's possibly worth pointing out, though, that a character can not be good without actually being evil. I've played 6 characters in my admittedly short RPG career, and only one of them could really be described as "good at heart", but only one of them was truly evil (and he was for a freeform live-action game, which is a bit outside the bounds of what we're talking about).
So long as your character has good reasons to work with the other PCs, and them with him or her, I see no problem. Creating characters who are likely to attempt to kill the other PCs is undesirable, I admit, but that doesn't mean every character has to care about anyone but themselves.
And you can have "inter-party conflict" without players actually killing each other, and it adds a lot to virtually any game.

[gschneider]

It seems (as you can see from this thread) that the most common misinterpretation of rule three is that people hear "good at heart" and automatically assume paladin level statemenship. Good at heart means good at the core, even though that core may be wrapped with darkness and years of sin and vice.

This is the sort of rule that you don't really need when your playing goodie two shoes campaigns or RPGA (which hammers it with alignment unnecessarily.) This is teh sort of rule you need when people are playing demons or vampires or churlish rogues. (Han Solo anyone?)

But I am getting ahead of myself and my column. I think that is part of next month's column. . .

[flatscan]

It seems (as you can see from this thread) that the most common misinterpretation of rule three is that people hear "good at heart" and automatically assume paladin level statemenship. Good at heart means good at the core, even though that core may be wrapped with darkness and years of sin and vice.

This is the sort of rule that you don't really need when your playing goodie two shoes campaigns or RPGA (which hammers it with alignment unnecessarily.) This is teh sort of rule you need when people are playing demons or vampires or churlish rogues. (Han Solo anyone?)


White Wolf states in several Vampire books that there is no such thing as a "good" vampire. While some Vampires try to retain their humanity, many others (especially if you're playing in the Dark Ages) follow different paths that make them monsters in deed as well as nature. My current group has only a single character who walks the road of humanity, the others follow the roads of kings, the beast and sin. None of those three characters would describe their characters as "good at heart". They're evil, manipulating creatures of the night. Why do they work together? Because it benefits them to. They're playing young vampires who would get eaten for lunch if they didn't have each other to depend on. But they don't depend on one another because of their ideals, they depend on one another out of a need to survive. As such, they also try to manipulate and use one another to further their own ends. But killing each other outright serves no purpose and would in fact weaken the coterie. I have run many, many games like this and have not had to ask my players to "play nice." I haven't misunderstood what you're saying, I just don't agree with you at all on that point.