Quote from: two_fishes;415533What does that mean. I have an idea in my head about what it might mean, but it's kind of vague and may not mean what you want it to mean.

I mean something along the lines of the character has a main, broadly drawn or caricatured world view, and then I try to make sure one of his personality elements can allow another character to call him on it or point out flaws in his logic. It's less of a "moral dilemma" thing as having a trigger that can provoke the character to action or to justify himself.

Off the top of my head I had a Ranger character who was this sort of gruff veteran, who made a lot of show of living rough and his impatience with high society and so on but he was frankly very self-impressed with his reputation and his fame as a great hunter, explorer, etc, so challenges or flattery from the kind of people he claimed to ignore could work on him quite a lot if they played to his temptations?

Totally depends on the setting / genre / GM's focus.  

I'm not impressed with "gray" or "depth" or "morally ambivalent" - if it works for the setting, cool but otherwise, I want to know where the GM's idea for the campaign and build characters accordingly.

I do love me some Necessary Evil.  Playing a super "hero" who is all about the end goal justifies...everything is pretty crazy fun.

Quote from: Cole;414903Reed Richards is often that way, too, I think.

Richards is a little different. He's often so obsessed with "Science!" or his personal projects that he's neglectful.
Whereas B5 is arrogant and dismissive of others, condescending, generally an ass, but so frustrating because he's usually RIGHT (except about things to do with human nature, which are not his forte).

RPGPundit

And I would say Blackadder doesn't fit into the definition of "good" at all; he's completely self-serving, in a way that Richards, Braniac 5, or Batman are not.

Of those, btw, Batman and B5 are much more similar to each other than to Reed.  The former two tend to do things on their own and trust no one, because they think that they're fundamentally more competent than anyone else.  Richards is much more prone to relying on others, rather than just using others.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;415747Of those, btw, Batman and B5 are much more similar to each other than to Reed.  The former two tend to do things on their own and trust no one, because they think that they're fundamentally more competent than anyone else.  Richards is much more prone to relying on others, rather than just using others.

RPGPundit

Good point! Of course it depends a lot on who's writing Batman (Richards' characterization has been more consistent over the years IMO) but most modern interpretations of Bruce, very much so.

Richards CAN be very manipulative as well; in a strange way it's founded in trust in a way that's not characteristic of Batman.

I'm only a casual legion reader so I'm not going to speculate on Brainiac - you're definitely the expert here.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;415191These kinds of characters can be fun. Where would you put a character like Edmund Blackadder on the list? He is sort of watered down evil and an SOB. But some might still consider him basically good (at least by the last season).

The various Blackadders aren't wholly the same character in different time periods though. Only in the last season would I regard him as other than primarily self-motivated. The first Edmund is cartoonishly evil, if pathetic.

Quote from: Cole;415750Good point! Of course it depends a lot on who's writing Batman (Richards' characterization has been more consistent over the years IMO) but most modern interpretations of Bruce, very much so.

Richards CAN be very manipulative as well; in a strange way it's founded in trust in a way that's not characteristic of Batman.

I'm only a casual legion reader so I'm not going to speculate on Brainiac - you're definitely the expert here.

Like with Batman, over time B5 has been portrayed as successively more manipulative, as well as more arrogant (though the high water mark there might have been in the "threeboot" legion that was the Legion comic until Final Crisis; the current Brainy is essentially the Levitz-era Brainy, who's still arrogant and manipulative but much less of an asshole about it than the "threeboot" Brainiac).

RPGPundit

When I am good I am very very good, but when I am bad I am wicked.

It's much harder to play a good or evil character. Playing morally grey self-serving types is the easiest thing.

It's difficult to stand up for a belief where that goes counter to the rub of the game and its hard to play an extreme view point without it becoming a cliche.

I will play anything but there will be consequences

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;415174But that doesn't mean you are unpredictable and a loose canon. My point is, it doesn't have to produce sheer chaos and predictable characters. Some of the most interesting characters are evil. I agree, an evil character with no redeeming qualities, who kills for fun...that is going to be boring. But more complicated characterizations of evil are possible.

That may not be true playing a character that kills for fun in a world where there are unpleasant consequences for that behaviour I don't think would ever get dull. Think Mr Blonde or Dexter. And a character that kills for fun, like both of these do can still be nuanced and interesting and have redeeming features.

The problem of course is that in most game worlds, murder and mayhem are not deemed evil but acceptable. In that situation there is little point playing a nuanced character you may as well play Tactiturn Fighter #11.

Quote from: jibbajibba;415876The problem of course is that in most game worlds, murder and mayhem are not deemed evil but acceptable. In that situation there is little point playing a nuanced character you may as well play Tactiturn Fighter #11.

That's true. Which takes us back to my point about empathy. Evil implies lack of empathy for the victim. But it can be hard to feel empathy for NPCs in a  roleplaying game because NPCs aren't real people. Unless both GM and players put real effort into humanise the NPCs they are nothing more than stage furniture or resources to be tapped.  This in turn makes evil very cheap.

That's the thing. I'm autistic. I have a hard enough time with empathy in real life.

Sociopathic bastards really suit me because I am one.

Quote from: Cole;415754The various Blackadders aren't wholly the same character in different time periods though. Only in the last season would I regard him as other than primarily self-motivated. The first Edmund is cartoonishly evil, if pathetic.

I agree with this assessment. But I would say his self interest, particularly in season 2 and 3, keep him from behaving in stupidly evil ways that would be disruptive in a gaming session.

Quote from: jibbajibba;415876That may not be true playing a character that kills for fun in a world where there are unpleasant consequences for that behaviour I don't think would ever get dull. Think Mr Blonde or Dexter. And a character that kills for fun, like both of these do can still be nuanced and interesting and have redeeming features.

I don't disagree. That is why a said a character with no redeeming qualities who kills for fun would be boring. However, in my experience, characters that kill for fun in an rpg rarely rise to the level of a Mr. Blonde, tend toward disruption.

QuoteThe problem of course is that in most game worlds, murder and mayhem are not deemed evil but acceptable. In that situation there is little point playing a nuanced character you may as well play Tactiturn Fighter #11.

I do think setting has a lot to do with it. I play a lot of modern games, and there are just more rules that keep evil guys in check. Even in my mafia campaign, where we have one or two loose canons, they have to worry about going to jail or ending up on the evening news if they take things too far (guys like Ralph Cifaretto normally meet grisly ends in my games, because it is a logical consequence of their actions).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;416111I don't disagree. That is why a said a character with no redeeming qualities who kills for fun would be boring. However, in my experience, characters that kill for fun in an rpg rarely rise to the level of a Mr. Blonde, tend toward disruption.



I do think setting has a lot to do with it. I play a lot of modern games, and there are just more rules that keep evil guys in check. Even in my mafia campaign, where we have one or two loose canons, they have to worry about going to jail or ending up on the evening news if they take things too far (guys like Ralph Cifaretto normally meet grisly ends in my games, because it is a logical consequence of their actions).

I agree that "modern" games tend to a more realistic legal framework but you run a D&D game with the same level of control. A city with an actual city watch, that arrest people just for killin' and stealin'? Unheard of.
Even modern games shy away from actual action (of course in my games Swat teams get called out to handle vampire disturbances and Cyberpunk criminals appear on mass news channels).

Then you get the whole discussion of "monsters", which we have covered before. It is usually fine to burn out a whole warren of goblins. Not only do the goblins have no legal recourse but the action is seen as 'good' because goblins are iredeemeble creatures of the night. A Lawful culture where all intelligent creatures are seen as having some sort of natural rights and interference of those rights is a crime would never be popuar. Kill things and take their stuff is a core paradigm after all.

Quote from: danbuter;414504When you game, do you prefer to be the good guy, all heroic and protecting the people; or the evil bastard, killing the helpless and getting rich off their loot?

Almost always a good guy.

And my games tend to skew towards the heroic as well (with little prompting...I tend to follow my players' leads on the types of games they want to play).