Playing characters with radically different opinions than yourself?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Lessa

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Messages
1,891
Reaction score
3,041
Have you ever did it? I mean, in significant ways? No need for funny voices, sure, but at least taking coherent choices and attitudes in the fiction, and not just as background fluff that you ignore when the adventure is rolling. "Raised by bears" in the char sheet, "polite average joe" during play. No, not that.

I ask because reading on Dogs in the Vineyard again, it occurred to me that as an atheist (or agnostic? I'm never sure), it could be cool playing as a hardass Christian believer. It would probably be awkward at first, but I bet I it would be interesting anyway.
 
Yes,

I assume you mean beyond the basics right?

I've played;
  • Thieves (a person that takes what they want and are underhanded and dishonest)
  • murderers (Killing without remorse, using violence as the first choice.)
  • psychopaths (characters with a complete disconnect from the rest of humanist that doesn't care for anyone but myself)
  • occultist (willing to contact outside forces, usually demonic in nature, to enforce my will on the world)
  • vampires/cannibals (eaten humans, used them for food)
I've also played people with different social and political views than myself.
 
Yes,

I assume you mean beyond the basics right?

I've played;
  • Thieves (a person that takes what they want and are underhanded and dishonest)
  • murderers (Killing without remorse, using violence as the first choice.)
  • psychopaths (characters with a complete disconnect from the rest of humanist that doesn't care for anyone but myself)
  • occultist (willing to contact outside forces, usually demonic in nature, to enforce my will on the world)
  • vampires/cannibals (eaten humans, used them for food)
I've also played people with different social and political views than myself.
Yep, nailed it.
 
Have you ever did it? I mean, in significant ways? No need for funny voices, sure, but at least taking coherent choices and attitudes in the fiction, and not just as background fluff that you ignore when the adventure is rolling.
Who hasn't:shock:?

I mean, let me see a short list... I've played a non-Hollywoodean pimp (generally a profession I find morally contemptible IRL).
I've played a 15th century mercenary who firmly believed that the natural order (as evidenced in 15th century society) is good and right, and created by God alongside the rest of the world (and yes, he was deferring on important decisions to the knights in the party).
I've played an Exalted who supported the natural order in the setting, slavery very much included*...and no, he never re-evaluated. There were other Exalted to fight and a Creation to save. Not that we ever got to saving Creation, but that was because the campaign folded.
Oh, and he had his own Fair Folk servants, Eclipse-oath-bound to serve him.
I've also played a racist industrialist in CoC, who ordered a hit on his wife for the inheritance (and to make space for another:devil:). Other than those details, he was lots of fun to be around...
I've played vampires, who considered humans "walking, talking puppets that feed you". I've played a wizard who considered the use of necrotic-inducing magic a good way to persuade people on the other side to open doors.

And of course, as Jerry Jerry hinted, I've played the even more dubious characters, like dungeoncrawlers:evil:!


I've also played a retired cop (guess the system, it begins with Mongoose Trav...:tongue:) who didn't bother to arrest the mobsters who were into trafficking slaves for pimp-like purposes. Which was much closer to my stance on the matter...but would have lead him to object, sometimes violently so, to the actions of my other PCs listed above!
I''ve played swascbucklers and xia who were cheating bastards themselves*, but estimated everyone on their deeds, and would die to protect the honour of any woman (or at least of those that wanted it protected:shade:).
The list can go on and on...

*The first scene with one of those was running from a castle near Paris chased by an overweight husband and his servants.

But overall, I don't bother making characters who are far outside the norms of their society - or at least, far outside the expected norms. So, the Mexican I'm playing in Dumarest Dumarest 's game in 1875 is a Catholic who wants others to consider him devout. He's kinda leery of the gringo heathens, but he doesn't mind working with them for the greater good (his own included).
Now, the characters might change to adopt new stances in play, but that's going to happen in play. And not because of OOC pressure. Yes, I know, I'm a bad person:grin:!

*Though admittedly, he believed the natural order should allow for upwards mobility in cases where the abilities of the subject didn't match his or her station in life. After all, if a man can suddenly Exalt, why shouldn't the same man be allowed to gain better employment by being a talented trader? After all, this would benefit the whole Realm!
But, important caveat, he believed that should be sanctioned by said person's superiors, so I'm pretty sure he'd have been considered an evil person on some other forums.
 
Somehow I wound up playing a lot of clerics in D&D, and I'm an atheist. Also a fair number of drug dealers, and a shaman in Shadowrun that would use extortion on people who needed healing. Mainly people she didn't like, but still.....
 
I try to, but I always end up doing wish-fulfillment fantasies. Characters who are smarter more charismatic or bad ass than I’ll ever be. Or characters that I’d want to read a book about. Like my black metal witch bard chick that I’m currently playing.
 
Have you ever did it? I mean, in significant ways? No need for funny voices, sure, but at least taking coherent choices and attitudes in the fiction, and not just as background fluff that you ignore when the adventure is rolling. "Raised by bears" in the char sheet, "polite average joe" during play. No, not that.

I ask because reading on Dogs in the Vineyard again, it occurred to me that as an atheist (or agnostic? I'm never sure), it could be cool playing as a hardass Christian believer. It would probably be awkward at first, but I bet I it would be interesting anyway.

Sure. Ruling out being a GM, because I have to cover a LOT of ground...but to go right to your example: being a Christian but playing a follower of any of D&D’s more paganistic Gods.
 
I've played a Rabbi, despite being an agnostic. (Although admittedly a Jewish agnostic. Not saying you couldn't do that without the background, but you'd need to do a lot more research if you wanted to do it right).

Generally I find it an interesting exercise, as long as players are careful not to switch into caricature. Even fanatics have more to them than that single character trait.
 
Generally I find it an interesting exercise, as long as players are careful not to switch into caricature. Even fanatics have more to them than that single character trait.
Good point. I've played an opportunistic bitch in Monsterhearts once, but that game was so fast (2 sessions) that she ended up really steareotypic/one-note.

I like assuming roles starkly different than myself but unfortunately 90% of the time it's in an environment that don't really challenge the character ideas, like dungeon crawls or missions, and so they end up being all very similar in practice.
 
All the time...its part of the enjoyment of playing the game.
 
img.php
 
Q: Playing characters with radically different opinions than yourself?

A: Doesn't every referee do this as a matter of course?
Do you feel that taking a meaningful moral choice as a GM NPC is the same as when you're a protagonist PC?

It doesn't sound the same thing to me.
 
Do you feel taking a meaningful moral choice as a GM NPC is the same as when you're a protagonist PC?

I don't think it's the same thing, personally.
How is it any different? Either way you are (ideally) playing a role and making choices you believe your character would make.
 
Have you ever did it? I mean, in significant ways? No need for funny voices, sure, but at least taking coherent choices and attitudes in the fiction, and not just as background fluff that you ignore when the adventure is rolling. "Raised by bears" in the char sheet, "polite average joe" during play. No, not that.

I ask because reading on Dogs in the Vineyard again, it occurred to me that as an atheist (or agnostic? I'm never sure), it could be cool playing as a hardass Christian believer. It would probably be awkward at first, but I bet I it would be interesting anyway.

I am a risk-averse, out-of-shape, going-on-40 family man who’s spent the last five years trying to become more moderate in my opinions, and more sensitive to people around me.

Games would be extraordinarily boring if my characters weren’t radically unlike myself. I don’t necessarily play evil PCs but I do give the ol’ id a little escape valve.

That being said, there are lines I am not interested in crossing. I might play an evil character, but some things I wouldn’t roleplay at all, and might even walk from the game if someone else did.
 
How is it any different? Either way you are (ideally) playing a role and making choices you believe your character would make.
I don't think I "enter" my NPCs as I do my PCs. When I'm GMing I just do what seems coherent to the NPC at the moment, and it's just... easier somehow? While for PCs I get more ponderous, it's like my choices have more weight then.

Ie: I could easily describe a mafia NPC torturing and breaking someone's fingers or something, but it would be harder for me to make the same while on the skin of my PC.
 
Last edited:
As a DM, I do it all the time. As a player, I prefer not to. I play roleplaying games, by and large, for the power fantasy aspect and it takes me out of the fantasy to use my character's power in ways I'd find distasteful.
 
I see what Lessa silva is saying, and I agree. As a GM I’m presenting a character, as a player, I'm being the character. GM NPCs don’t count.

There is a level of detachment when presenting horrible characters, they are there as an obstacle. They are props with very little investment. PCs, on the other hand, are more realized and better-formed ideas and characterizations.

The GM creates obstacles and situations, and although they have a lot of active agency in the game, it doesn’t affect it as much as the player's actions. In a broad sense, PCs are roles being played, GMs create opposition and content.

It's one thing to say, as the GM “the fascist are destroying the village”, and you as a PC saying “My fascist character is helping to cleanse the town of all the undesirables”.
The first is a horrible situation that the PCs counter, the other is a horrible PC (That you, as a player personally have active control over) doing reprehensible things.
 
Last edited:
I mean, sure. I’ve played psychopaths, I’ve played religious fanatics. In one Exalted game, I was a true believer follower of the Immaculate Faith.

Hell, one of the societies a friend and I created for Exalted is explicitly totalitarian. And they’re not the villains.
 
I prefer not to present NPCs as merely cardboard cutouts for the PCs to prevail against.
I agree, but how deep to you immerse yourself in the machinations of the adversaries? Let's say the henchmen of the main opposition of the piece? Does he get as much thought and clarity of purpose as the main adversary? And if so, where does it stop? How baroque are the NPCs and how much practical immersions and embodiment can you put into every character in a game.
Ive run games with tens of characters with speaking parts in a game. How often can anyone say they give as much relevant thought to the castle’s majordomo, or the towns deputy sheriff as they do to the castle’s Prince or the town's mayor?

Its like saying as a director of a play, you play all the roles when we know that in fact, that isn’t true. The director directs and guide, and the actors play the roles.
 
Its like saying as a director of a play, you play all the roles when we know that in fact, that isn’t true. The director directs and guide, and the actors play the roles.
Spot on! There's also this rule I've heard somewhere that makes sense in this context:

"When a person is the author of both the character's adversity and it's resolution, choices become meaningless" (or something like this)

I think this translates well the position of a GM/director and it's NPCs.
 
Everyone has played psychos and religious fanatics. Same here. Anyone step outside themselves in a more interesting way? I’m not dissing the rest of you because I am the same way, but I think we can agree this is low hanging fruit.
 
Have you ever did it? I mean, in significant ways? No need for funny voices, sure, but at least taking coherent choices and attitudes in the fiction, and not just as background fluff that you ignore when the adventure is rolling. "Raised by bears" in the char sheet, "polite average joe" during play. No, not that.

I ask because reading on Dogs in the Vineyard again, it occurred to me that as an atheist (or agnostic? I'm never sure), it could be cool playing as a hardass Christian believer. It would probably be awkward at first, but I bet I it would be interesting anyway.
Yes loads, but my favourite are people from other eras where they're different due to the whole mindset of the era being different. Playing a staunch Roman republican in a Mythras game was a highlight. It's more fun to me than being on the opposite side of opinions you'd find today.
 
Everyone has played psychos and religious fanatics. Same here. Anyone step outside themselves in a more interesting way? I’m not dissing the rest of you because I am the same way, but I think we can agree this is low hanging fruit.
I mean, depends on how far you have to go? Is a street punk or a theoretical physicist good enough?
 
I mean, depends on how far you have to go? Is a street punk or a theoretical physicist good enough?
Maybe. I'm addressing the OP, so it's more about different opinions than different professions.
 
Have you ever did it? I mean, in significant ways? No need for funny voices, sure, but at least taking coherent choices and attitudes in the fiction, and not just as background fluff that you ignore when the adventure is rolling. "Raised by bears" in the char sheet, "polite average joe" during play. No, not that.
[ . . . ]
I've deliberately played characters with different values - a redneck, an aspiring guilder, a drunk party boy, a hard line communist, a spy from a foreign kingdom, a really dumb troll and so forth. Often, the characters were somewhat comedic in nature. Playing up a character with quirks and character flaws can be fun, and I've done that for laughs on a number of occasions. I haven't really got time for edge lords but some tension between characters can be fun if the players are into it.
 
Exploring a different PoV is largely the purpose of playing an RPG for me, I tend to make characters radically different from myself and watch how they naturally evolve over the course of play
 
Everyone has played psychos and religious fanatics. Same here. Anyone step outside themselves in a more interesting way? I’m not dissing the rest of you because I am the same way, but I think we can agree this is low hanging fruit.
My Rabbi wasn't a religious fantatic, he was a quietly devout guy from a poor background who did his best to look after his community. This was Unhallowed Metropolis so pseudo Victorian.

He wasn't based on any particular historical figure, but he was someone I could have pictured existing pre Shoah.
 
My Rabbi wasn't a religious fantatic, he was a quietly devout guy from a poor background who did his best to look after his community.
Gotcha...I misinterpreted this:
Generally I find it an interesting exercise, as long as players are careful not to switch into caricature. Even fanatics have more to them than that single character trait.
But FWIW I wasn't just (or even mostly) talking about you. I think psychos and religious fanatics seem easier to do because they are broad and lacking nuance.
 
A lot of the time yes. I play characters who are nicer than I am sometimes. (Mind you I try and be nice in real life, but hey I get frustrated.) I've played characters who are superstitious (I am not.), I've played characters who differed than me morally significantly (eviiiil!)
It's not an uncommon thing, sure I'm comfortable with playing things closer to me than not. Yet, some of that has to do with being a GM constantly and playing NPC's radically different. I'd play even more extreme variants from my baseline core ideals if I played more.
 
I think psychos and religious fanatics seem easier to do because they are broad and lacking nuance.
True.
Also, some games lend themselves to a deeper immersive roleplay, which allows for a deeper exploration of character. Torg is a run and gun type game that doesn't provide as much grist as let's say a game of Kult for example.
 
I tend to play characters who aren't averse to taking big risks, something I don't usually do (although others in my life might say that I have in the past).
 
I think psychos and religious fanatics seem easier to do because they are broad and lacking nuance.
Even when I play 'religious zealots' I think I'm stopping short of disrespectful caricature... I mean, they're zealots to me... in that their motivations for what they're doing are very strong. But I'm not playing them as crazy.
I was a true believer for years and there were some real nutters in our church... but that's not what I'm going for.

Price of Freedom was a game I thought might be fun. Playing a gun-toting 'patriot' fighting the commies... that would probably have me crossing over into satire.
 
Even when I play 'religious zealots' I think I'm stopping short of disrespectful caricature...
I can attest to that. If anyone was put off by my wording, I apologize.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top