Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cassius Harkanor 12-03-03, 06:03 AM	Ok, I’m starting this thread to ask everyone else to help my out with a roleplaying problem. A friend of mine has started a new game and I was ready to join, with each of use playing the four genasi each worshipping the Four Elemental gods. I recently raised some concerns that it would be impossible to roleplay getting along with one another, since we are all clerics and our dogma/belief would all collide. Anyway, he asked that i not play, since he believes that my roleplaying will cause arguments between the group. Now, this had led to further disagreements between us, as be both roleplay differently. He believes that characters can roleplay their characters in any way they se fit. Regardless of class, prestige class, race of feats, the character can roleplay as they which, provided no major mistakes are made. For example, he is playing an Incantrix and doesn’t believe he has to releplay or even care about the Incantrix’s dislike of outsiders or portals. He sees the Incantrix as nothing more than a metamagic wizard. I on the other hand, believe that your race, class and prestige class determine how you should roleplay. For example, if you’re a sun elf bladesinger, should rarely bother with non elves and see them as a resource to use up. You uphold elven ideals and customs and protect all elves. My friend doesn’t believe that a prestige class should determine what you are. He believes that assassins don’t have to be interested in killing people, loremaster don’t have to care about lore and books and a divine champion does not have to uphold the belief of their chosen god. Basically, it come’s down to either one of two choices and I’m trying to find out which way most people swing: Does a player roleplay as they wish or do their choices as a player (such as race or class) predetermine or predispose the way they should roleplay that character ?
Faraer 12-03-03, 10:32 AM	At least a couple of different questions here: Do classes and prestige classes have defined roles or are they just bundles of mechanics? Either can work, especially if the special abilities gained are fairly normal. In cases like the incantatrix (note number of syllables, and the very rare male form is incantatar) whose point is to introduce a rare, distinctive, and compelling character (initially NPC) type into the Realms, with abilities that mirror that type and are hard to explain otherwise, it seems wasteful and conceptually backwards to play the mechanics and ignore the real content of the character type. I don't see how playing someone with the powers of a divine champion without the character working for the god would be credible, if you're presenting your DM's position right. How rigorously should you roleplay? The most important thing is for everyone to be on the same page. You get out proportionally to what you put in, and if you have less character vividness and verisimilitude you need something else (tactical combat, brilliant plotweaving, etc.) if the time spent playing is going to be worthwhile. The Realms were built with a very roleplaying-over-rules style in mind, but plenty of people have adapted them to other purposes. Either totally disregarding racial norms or strictly parroting them would be bad. Same applies to other norms. Realms novelists have to do something between an Ed Greenwood pastiche (which would be redundant as we have Ed Greenwood) and just doing their own thing without regard to established mode and continuity (which would be disrespectful and pointless). So somewhere between 'predetermine' and 'as they wish' is sensible. If the concept of the campaign is for the four genasi to basically get along, you should either bend your ideas about that being impossible, or not play if that wouldn't be fun.
Wooly Rupert 12-03-03, 10:58 AM	The way I see it, the crunchy stuff should influence how you play. Abilities, numbers, feats, all that, those are things that the character can do; those are his/her options. So the character should be played to think of those things first. Ditto for race and class. I once played a minotaur warrior. Because he was big and bad, that was his approach to life -- just keep going forward, and mow down any obstacles. Very straightforward, and all that. Because he was strong enough to just plow thru anything, that was what he was used to doing. It was in his character, because of his numbers. My half-elf fighter-mage, on the other hand, had a very different style of play, because his stats and all were different. For me, it's all about the character concept. I usually come up with a concept first, and then try to get the stats and crunchy stuff to support the concept. The crunchy stuff dictates what a character can do, the role-playing determines how they do it. As for racial attitudes, I incorporate that into my concept. I might play an arrogant elf, or I might play an elf that's just out to see the world, and who doesn't really care about the attitudes of his people towards certain other races. Just because a race tends towards certain attitudes, doesn't mean that all the members of that race feel that way. Class is the same way. Many people think of paladins as righteous and uptight. But there's nothing to say that a paladin can't be a practical joker, or maybe just have a love of bad puns.... The crunchy stuff is the foundation that you build on, but it's not the entirety of the character. Concept and flavor are important, too. Now, for your genasi example. Well, if the DM had a really good reason for these differing priests to all be traveling together, then I don't see a problem. If everyone is of the same or similar alignment, then they should get along somewhat. The priest of Kossuth might not necessarily share his deepest darkest secrets with the priest of Istishia, but it's not impossible for them to get along well enough to at least work together. Rather unlikely, sure, since those priesthoods don't get along too well, but not impossible. I'd have to know the reason for those four to be traveling together before I decided whether or not it was a good reason... It sounds like your friend is more interested in just the crunch, and not the role-playing. That works for some people, but not for others.
The-Half 12-03-03, 11:11 AM	Sorry guy, but I disagree, to some point, with you. I agree that race, calss, etc. should be a GUIDE to how you roleplay, but to say that it is a rule etched in stone is a bit much. I'm part asian but my parents do not own a resturant, dry cleaners, or nail salon. I have black friends that are surfers, white friends from the hood, and hispanic friends that do not like spicy food. People are unique in their own way. The SUGGESTIONS on how the moajority of a class, race, etc. behave is not rule for everyone. There can be dwarven druids, elven barbarians, kind hearted drow, thieves with morals, fighters who would rather find peaceful solutions, sun elfs that are humble, etc. Hope that helps. The-Half
Selcar Of Selendar 12-03-03, 07:14 PM	Well i look at role playing this way, the race, alignment, class are the starting point of your personality for role playing your character. Now prc's are the elements that can change a characters personality; But you can also have a pcs in minde when makeing the character so the personality change is all ready there. But in my group it goes both way's and it does suck when yo have 3 people trying to role play. And then you got a guy playing a Druid that is going for evrything metal they come across. Or the greedy LG fighter hording all the goods, and never telling anyone that he found anything.
blix_the_drow 12-03-03, 11:31 PM	Originally posted by Cassius Harkanor Basically, it come’s down to either one of two choices and I’m trying to find out which way most people swing: Does a player roleplay as they wish or do their choices as a player (such as race or class) predetermine or predispose the way they should roleplay that character ? A character is what you make of it. The information given on dwarves, elves, humans, orcs, etc. is just standards. Something to go off of. Something to give you an idea of what a typical race is like. Typically, the Drow are greedy, back stabbing, power hungry, blood thirsty, politicians. But every now and then, a Drizzt Do'urden comes along and throws that all out of whack. Like the fellow said, just because you are Mexican, doesn't mean you eat tacos and play soccer. Just because you're Polish doesn't mean it's YOU in all those polock jokes. You play the character your way. Granted, class, race, feats and what not are guides for character development, but they don't force your character to behave as they suggest. Now, I wouldn't see a Lich becoming a Paladin anytime soon, but you get my point. Just because a character becomes a Cleric doesn't mean he will heal all that fall ill at his feet, nor does it mean he follows the LG army of the righteous king to heal them as the attempt to fight off the marauding orc bands. He could use his priestly powers to rule the orcs and take over the land! How cool is that, ruling thousands of orcs.....I digress. Have fun with it, if it doesn't work, scrap it and start again. But don't be held to the confines of the rulebook! Blix the Drow
AsarothTheBarbarian 12-04-03, 03:14 PM	i am trying to fix my druid. give me sum slck, it was the first time i played a druid, and old, take-all-the-shiny-stuff-habits die hard. i promise he will be more druidy next time.
Lashan 12-04-03, 06:41 PM	I think it is all about having fun, as Faraer said. You can take DnD and even the FR and change it any way you want to. Just make sure that everyone is on that same page. That way you can all have fun. I recently had a good friend drop out of my game because he was more of a dungeon crawler and I wanted more of a role playing political campaign. I don't fault him for his style of play.
Folcoerr 12-05-03, 12:22 AM	I would say that for the most part, a player can play a race/class/prestige class mostly in any way that he can reasonably explain, as long as it's done with reasonable consistency. If you have a moon elf assassin and you don't like to kill people, you'd better have a damn good reason, and I'd have to say if you weren't willing to kill people, your days in leveling up assassin classes is over, until something happens to change it. Play your character and class based on your background, but don't expect to be able to play a divine champion who doesn't care about his god's agenda for long, because that's what makes him a divine champion is that he cares about his god's agenda. So use it reasonably, and if you're doing things that don't at all correspond or rather do contradict your class and/or racial tendencies, you'd better have some damn good reasoning behind it, though I would say levels could not be taken in things completely contrary to your character's personality. I have a ranger 20/deepwood sniper 2 that recently joined up with the Harpers as a Harper scout. This is a guy who is typically quiet and until recently had very little desire to do any singing and dancing, but since I decided I wanted to try the Harper route, the character has gotten a lot more interested in those things and strives to learn more in performing and in doing Harper stuff than he likely would have been originally. I've changed the character to fit, and I intend to continue along more Harperish lines of behavior now that I've gone Harper scout 2. That is all.
ENHenry 12-05-03, 10:50 AM	Originally posted by Cassius Harkanor Basically, it come’s down to either one of two choices and I’m trying to find out which way most people swing: Does a player roleplay as they wish or do their choices as a player (such as race or class) predetermine or predispose the way they should roleplay that character ? [/B] I do not believe that race and class should be the final word for a character's personality; The_Half said it best in his "racial stereotype" example. By the same token, are all store clerks uneducated? Are all engineers stuffy and imperious? Are all lawyers eloquent speakers? It can be fun to play to type, but it can be just as valid to play AGAINST type: The militant wizard, the pacifist barbarian who can't control his rages (think Bruce Banner/The Hulk), the Bard with the style of Abraham Lincoln... [B]...I was ready to join, with each of use playing the four genasi each worshipping the Four Elemental gods. I recently raised some concerns that it would be impossible to roleplay getting along with one another, since we are all clerics and our dogma/belief would all collide. Not of necessity; surely the clerics would realize that all the elements are dependent upon one another, and recognize one another's importance! The Fire is nothing without Earth to burn and air to feed; the air is nothing without the mountains to shape her force; the water is nothing without earth to lie upon, etc. It is not of necessity that fighting will break out; only the general predisposition, and not even that if the campaign world is different in outlook.
Cassius Harkanor 12-05-03, 10:03 PM	Thank's to everyone who posted. It helps to hear what other people think. To answer several people, the DM was going to set the campaign in Greyhawk and run the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil adventure. Not having heard mushc about the adventure, I figured that there would lost of elemental stuuf in there and we would clash as what would happen in certain circumstances (such as finding a temple dedicated to one of the gods). To further explain my views, I just belive that a character's choices, especially prestige classes, should guide or determine how a chracter role plays. It is designed to encourage people from taking a prestige class just because of the game mechanic information and ignore the roleplaying requirements or benefits required. If someone wants to be a human fighter with no prestige classes, then they can roleplay how they wish. But is someone wants to play a sun elf wizard/high mage, then I except that character to roleplay well. Perhaps its left over baggage from 2nd edition, or perhaps ive read far to many novels, or even played with the wrong people, but I just belive in good roleplaying. Lastly, if were are allowed to play our character how we want, what makes each character different from the rest ?
Cassius Harkanor 12-05-03, 10:03 PM	Double post
Proc 12-05-03, 10:52 PM	How I've always approached role-playing is to create the concept long before I come up with the stats/levels. This I do really only if I know it's going to be a long campaign and I might be stuck with the same character for a while. And I've done about a dozen of those... Do I want a light-on-their-feet fighter? A charismatic rogue? A powerfull but terse wizard? Once I come up with a concept I'm happy with (and it's something I haven't done before or at least not recently - and it meshes with the rest of the party) then I'll build the character stats and start thinking about levels I'll want them to advance in. The stats/levels may be a guideline, but without them, what else have you got to go on? If you start with the stats, I feel you can get trapped in a character you don't really like that much. My 2 cents.
ender 12-13-03, 07:31 PM	In matters of personal taste, I tend to agree with Wooly Rupert and Proc: the concept comes first and everything else follows. A good concept really brings your character to life and makes roleplaying both easier and more fun. For example, a little while ago my brother made a character that he based on Vash the Stampede from Trigun. The guy had a troubled past and had foresworn violence. But he was also a fighter, so he had amazing expertise in grappling, sundering, tripping, disarming, used nets and subdual damage, and whenever possible avoided the fight by negotiation or outsmarting the bad guys. My current character is a barbarian who in a lot of ways acts lawfully: he has an very strict code of honor that he adheres to no matter what the cost. Except that he's a wild dwarf in the dalelands, so to a lot of people there his ethos is wack, if not outright crazy or brutal. Concepts can drive a game and bring very odd elements together. When I first read about the four elemental clerics, I envisioned them as being the priest, the rabbi, and the mullah in jokes: they have their differences, yes, but they can all understand that their purposes are holy and therefore harmonious. IMO, the character stereotypes are there for guidance, especially to newer players who might choose a lawful good paladin but get really tempted to start sticking his sword into people when the local king doesn't cooperate. They shouldn't be taken as unbreakable rules.
Marshall Stone 12-14-03, 01:39 AM	"Basically, it come’s down to either one of two choices and I’m trying to find out which way most people swing: Does a player roleplay as they wish or do their choices as a player (such as race or class) predetermine or predispose the way they should roleplay that character ?" IMO a player will always role play as he wishes. However that doesn't mean that race, class, and stats should not be a part of how the player role-plays. In this sense I kind of agree with Wooley Rupert. The crunchy stuff should affect but not necessarily define the character. I like the idea of a good or even not-evil aligned drow, of a Druid who isn't interested so much in promoting the benefits of Nature and the Environment as one who is more interested in being an Avenger of the forest. But there is a limit. Once that Druid stops caring about nature in ANY way, well then he should become a fighter. I also agree with Ender that the standards/steretypes written about the classes/races are especially usefull to New Players. I have two players who approach role-playing radically different. One guy can play any number of character concepts and one guy can only play one concept. Still both guys find/found the APPROPRIATE race, class, and assigned stats to play the concepts/concept he wants to play. And yes I wrote APPROPRIATE. I'll give my players a lot of leeway, as much as I can but, a Divine Champion, almost by Definition MUST uphold the philiosphy of his god. He might do it in a way that totally flies in the face of his god's ideals, like say a Champion of Tyr who decides to bring "justice" in his own way...through assassination. And in that way not play as one would Expect a Champion of Tyr to play. Of course that's really pushing it, but if the player can pull it off...well then that's role-playing.