Playing Another Character's Class

[Script Wrecked]

Please be aware (and mindful and considerate) that when subsuming knowledge of another character's class (or race or alignment for that matter), that the other player is being denied the opportunity to play those components of their own character.

Certain things about the different classes/races/alignments are common (character) knowledge, but when their own doctrines/dogmas/creeds/racial outlooks are quoted at them, well, that component of that character has just been rendered superfluous and impotent.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[s0ulz]

Word.

[Nehetsrev]

Well, let me play devil's advocate here a bit, sorta.  I don't know exactly what prompted this post, or even who all was involved, but I'll post a general statement that I hope will be helpful for diffusing any bad feelings amongst our players for future encounters.

First off, a character's class in my opinion shouldn't even really be directly brought up in-character, in-game.  We should always try to remember that our characters don't see themselves quite as starkly as the 'cookie-cutter-molds' that the class names/labels infer.  They see themselves as individuals with certain talents and proficiencies, and their own unique ideas about the world around themselves.  For instance, a character who wields a short-sword isn't nescessarilly a fighter, they could be a rogue or any other class (except druid because of their oaths) if they have devoted their time to learning how to wield martial weapons.  Our characters remarks to or about other characters in-game then should reflect our observations, but not nescessarilly label outright a character with a class name.

Now, another thing that's likely to come up in-game (as the above post seems to hint at) are questions about how our characters associated with a given faith are viewed.  As we play our clerics, paladins, or whatnot, we should keep in mind that the world in general has a certain view of what a typical member of any given faith is like, and some characters are likely to notice when our own vary from that generalization.  Some might be very vocal about their opinions, especially if they're negative and/or differ greatly from the distinctions that make our own characters unique.

For an example, I play a cleric/fighter/bard of Xeen who's views on Xeens doctrine are different than the 'common' interpretations of Xeens doctrine as they've been played by other characters following the same goddess.  On more than one occasion I've been told by a non-Xeenite (in-character) that I wasn't worshipping Xeen properly and that I'd soon find myself bereft of her blessings.  Instead of getting all bent out of shape out-of-character about it, I've chosen instead to respond in-character, firstly by pointing out how my own character's interpretations are not only valid, but are actually the 'true' and 'proper' interpretations of the dogma.  Then I also point out that if they weren't I'd already have lost, or never would have had in the first place, Xeen's favor as the other character has suggested would be the case.

The bottom line comes that if you clearly outlined your own character's interpretations of the dogma of their god/goddess in your original character submission, and it was approved by the Team of character approvers, and you're sticking to that outline as you play your character in-game, then no one can really have a leg to stand on in trying to tell you to play your character elsewise in an out-of-character way.  The possible exception to that being that the character approvers made a mistake and approved an interpretation of the dogma that wasn't actually in-line enough with the Lore & vision of Layonara's creators, in which case a member of the Layonara DM team will bring that to your attention and under review by the Team, the Loremaster, and Leanthar.

Let other characters try to tell you how to be a proper reflection of your characters faith, and then turn it around and do your best to convince them of how your character's interpretations are actually more valid than what they think is.

PS Edit - It might also be good to note here that any character who is devout enough to have the diety's name in their diety field should be doing almost everything they do in the name of, and for the glory of their god or goddess.  Obviously certain worshippers of certain dieties will wish to internalize such attitudes out of nescessity, but those attitudes should still be there and perhaps hinted at, and even probably explained later in one's CDT so that the DM team knows your characters motivations for doing something that might've looked out-of-line with your character's chosen god/goddess while happening in-game.

[Script Wrecked]

For an example, I play a cleric/fighter/bard of Xeen who's views on Xeens doctrine are different than the 'common' interpretations of Xeens doctrine as they've been played by other characters following the same goddess.  On more than one occasion I've been told by a non-Xeenite (in-character) that I wasn't worshipping Xeen properly and that I'd soon find myself bereft of her blessings.  Instead of getting all bent out of shape out-of-character about it, I've chosen instead to respond in-character, firstly by pointing out how my own character's interpretations are not only valid, but are actually the 'true' and 'proper' interpretations of the dogma.  Then I also point out that if they weren't I'd already have lost, or never would have had in the first place, Xeen's favor as the other character has suggested would be the case.

...

Let other characters try to tell you how to be a proper reflection of your characters faith, and then turn it around and do your best to convince them of how your character's interpretations are actually more valid than what they think is.

In my opinion, I believe you are (graciously) handling IG an OOC situation that has been raised IG that shouldn't be, probably to keep the IG experience flowing along nicely for everyone.

This is what I believe happened:

[INDENT]Player X: *thought bubble* "I don't think Nehetsrev is playing a Xeenite cleric properly."

Player X's Character: (paraphrased) "I don't think you're being a proper Xeenite cleric."[/INDENT]

My response to that is Player X's character shouldn't care whether your character is being a proper Xeenite cleric or not, unless A) they are a Xeenite cleric, or B) they are a Xeenite follower and your character is their priest.

Just think about the real life situation for a moment. If, as a non-believer or member of a different faith, you came across a member of clergy from another faith who didn't fit the typical view of that clergy, would you go up to them and tell them how they are "supposed" to be?

No, I didn't think so. Neither would your character.

It would be beneficial to remember to place a degree of separation between us and our characters, even when we are playing our character as ourself (personality-wise). This is simply because our characters do not know everything we know. They haven't read LORE, or people's Character Development Journals, or for that matter, been to high school or college, let alone university (but that's another matter...). This separation allows us to ask the question, "Would my character (not me) do this?"

There is alot of OOC information out there that we are privy to that our characters do not know. The only people who know what a "proper" Xeenite cleric is are the Xeenite clerics. They're the ones who attended the seminary for umpteen years (or whatever it is Xeenites do), not your character.

So, essentially, when this statement was made in-game about your character, they were meta-ing. However, in this case, they are probably doing it for all the right reasons, viz, they are concerned about the consistency of someone's roleplay (a good thing).

What would be beneficial to realise is that this is an OOC concern, so it should be raised in a OOC fashion, and not brought in-game. Now, I'm not sure of the OOC path for this sort of thing, but if you are feeling brave, perhaps a tell, something along the lines of, "Can I ask you about how you are roleplaying your cleric?" Be prepared for a "No" response, but I'm guessing, most people would actually be quite pleased to talk about how and why they are roleplaying their characters the way they do.

Remember to ask questions though, and not make judgements, otherwise you are just going to have an argument.  Not, "You're not playing your Xeenite cleric properly," or "I don't think you're playing your Xeenite cleric properly," but more along the lines of, "It seems you are playing your Xeenite cleric quite differently to other Xeenite clerics. Would you care to share a bit about this?"

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Link092]

Plus... can't you use tells to inform others (Out of Character) where they might need to clean up their "act" for better RP? just a thought...

[Xiaobeibi]

Plus... can't you use tells to inform others (Out of Character) where they might need to clean up their "act" for better RP? just a thought...

In 99.9% of all cases if someone told me I was playing MY character wrong I would find it offensive.

If you stay in character and you behave within the overall guidelines of the server then others really have no business telling you to clean up your act.

How can you know their motivations, background and basic character? I dont think you can...ever.

When we critise the roleplay of others we are critising the player. Again I would argue that in 99,9% of the cases what we are actually doing is presuming our private view on good roleplay is the only way and judging others by that.

If you think others roleplay are lacking instead critising or making "suggestions" via tells spend time with them. Teach by example and be willing to learn from example. In most cases you will end up not having changed their roleplay but appreciating it.

Tolerance of other players go a long way in making a friendly server.

[Lynn1020]

This has seemed to come up again lately and thought this could use a little bump.  I agree with everything that xiaobeibi had to say on it and can only add...

No one should be telling others how to play their characters.

Also, to me it is in bad taste to correct others in your emotes.  


It ruins the fun for everyone when there is one that is constantly correcting everyone and trying to tell them what they should or should not do.   We should just play the game and have fun. Leaving all the correcting players up to the GM.

[Dorax Windsmith]

One of the things that make this server so great is that each player brings thier own unique personality and interpretation on the character or characters they play.  Every character is different, and not just the standard differences of class & diety.  Everyone should allow and respect other players creativity.  The GM team will step in if things start to bend/break server rules or are blatantly wrong (i.e. good clerics performing evil acts).

[Xiaobeibi]

The GM team will step in if things start to bend/break server rules or are blatantly wrong (i.e. good clerics performing evil acts).

Good clerics can certainly have their reasons to perform an "evil" act. They are not paladins, good-evil isn't the only axis here and motivations for the clergy are often complex. Furthermore what is an evil act?

I dare anyone here give a non-empty definition of evil which is neutral with regards to context, time, culture and philosophic standpoint.


Edit: P.S. I am sorry for quoting out of context, but playing a good cleric this is important to me.

[Script Wrecked]

Perhaps your challenge is worthy of it own thread.

I think Dorax was just providing a simple case of where it would be left to the DMs to address the situation.

By the way, "I dare anyone" is quite provocative, and more along the lines of "do you risk answering", rather than "can this be answered" (which I am presuming was your intent).

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[Pseudonym]

I dare anyone here give a non-empty definition of evil which is neutral with regards to context, time, culture and philosophic standpoint.

Here you go.

[Xiaobeibi]

:rolleyes: thanks pseud

@Script wrecked: I almost certain you are right about Dorax. And yes I did hijack his comment.

I can only speak from personal experience, but divine characters (clerics, druids, paladins etc) tend to elicit a fair amount of "backseat roleplaying". I won't go as far as calling it grief, but it can be a semi-constant source of irritation, and reason enough, for me, not to make another cleric.

I think Lynn is spot on with "It ruins the fun for everyone when there is one that is constantly correcting everyone and trying to tell them what they should or should not do"

[Link092]

:\\ I never saw the response... but yes, I whole-heartedly agree. I was just stating that if you -must- it is better to use tells...  >.<'  at least then the awkwardness of imposed RP is not there.... 'cause from there, you can just take of and not RP with them anymore...

In 99.9% of all cases if someone told me I was playing MY character wrong I would find it offensive.

If you stay in character and you behave within the overall guidelines of the server then others really have no business telling you to clean up your act.

How can you know their motivations, background and basic character? I dont think you can...ever.

When we critise the roleplay of others we are critising the player. Again I would argue that in 99,9% of the cases what we are actually doing is presuming our private view on good roleplay is the only way and judging others by that.

If you think others roleplay are lacking instead critising or making "suggestions" via tells spend time with them. Teach by example and be willing to learn from example. In most cases you will end up not having changed their roleplay but appreciating it.

Tolerance of other players go a long way in making a friendly server.

[Lynn1020]

The thing is... sending tells correcting people can cross the line into griefing after a while.

[Gulnyr]

Good clerics can certainly have their reasons to perform an "evil" act. They are not paladins, good-evil isn't the only axis here and motivations for the clergy are often complex. Furthermore what is an evil act?

I dare anyone here give a non-empty definition of evil which is neutral with regards to context, time, culture and philosophic standpoint.

In character, that's really hard, just like in real life situations.  Mechanics-wise, it's pretty straight forward, though.  The rules governing alignment spell out the difference between Good and Evil; you can look in the D&D rulebooks and see exactly what an Evil act is.  By the rules, Good and Evil are pretty much black-and-white, so what is considered Evil is neutral to all context.  

It's really a pain in the butt trying to keep objective, capitalized, alignment Good and Evil separate from subjective, lower case, in-character good and evil while thinking about this stuff.

Sorry to continue the tangent.  I tried to keep it short.

[Xiaobeibi]

In character, that's really hard, just like in real life situations.  Mechanics-wise, it's pretty straight forward, though.  The rules governing alignment spell out the difference between Good and Evil; you can look in the D&D rulebooks and see exactly what an Evil act is.  By the rules, Good and Evil are pretty much black-and-white, so what is considered Evil is neutral to all context.  

It's really a pain in the butt trying to keep objective, capitalized, alignment Good and Evil separate from subjective, lower case, in-character good and evil while thinking about this stuff.

Sorry to continue the tangent.  I tried to keep it short.

*grins* with regards to context, but the D&D rules are certainly not neutral with regards to culture or philosophic standpoint. I my opinion they represent one stand; which they have then defined as correct. Defining is what you do when you don't have an argument (The D&D rulebook, not you)

Interesting point though and therefore: to which extend is Layonara still bound by D&D perspectives and rules?

I am not - actually - trying to advocate that anything goes, but rather we should be less judgemental. This isn't about respecting or agreeing with the other character, but respecting the other player. We don't have to agree on all actions, just not presume, judge or start lecturing. We have players in all ages from, more or less, all over the planet; and a little respect for the other players goes a long way in keeping it a friendly place.



Footnote: There are of course actions and situations, which are forbidden on this server as per the server rules.

[Gulnyr]

I agree with your conclusion and understand where we miscommunicated.

Rulebook alignments (Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil) are spelled exactly like other words in English (lawful, chaotic, good, and evil) but actually represent concepts that only exist inside the game system.  They are identically spelled homonyms - like ball and ball (one is a sphere you can play with, the other is a party where you dance) - that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.  Though they are likely based on someone's concepts of lawful, chaotic,good and evil, the fact that they are not directly representative of the real world things their spellings mimic means that their definitions in the rulebook establish them as unbiased positions.  If players apply their own real world perspectives of, say, evil to the game term Evil, it will indeed be impossible to show that any given in-game action is or is not evil.  That's why it's nice that there are the unbiased definitions of Lawful, Chaotic, Good, and Evil to look to when trying to determine if characters have mechanically strayed from their alignments.  Mechanics have nothing to do with in-character opinion, of course, which just makes it more confusing, and none of this alignment chatter has very much (and probably nothing) to do with people telling other people how to play.

It would be much easier to talk about alignments if they were called [post=504302]Goldoon, Ert, Blebox, and Squif[/post] instead...

[Script Wrecked]

I can only speak from personal experience, but divine characters (clerics, druids, paladins etc) tend to elicit a fair amount of "backseat roleplaying". I won't go as far as calling it grief, but it can be a semi-constant source of irritation, and reason enough, for me, not to make another cleric.

"But you're a cleric|druid|paladin|champion. You must behave like a one-dimensional representation of your character. Its in the rules... *point, point, pointity...*"(1)

My sympathies. (2)




(1) That might be more humorous if people weren't actually getting spammed with it.
(2) I'm guessing "bug off" would be too harsh to send in a tell. O.o;)

[Xiaobeibi]

@ Gulnyr: I understand your point, but it does raise the question to which extend we are still bound by the rules and mechanics of D&D in this transition state before the MMO.

@Script Wrecked: At times it can be rather funny; especially when someone spends an evening insulting your god/goddess only to moan and complain when you won't raise them.

[Script Wrecked]

@Script Wrecked: At times it can be rather funny; especially when someone spends an evening insulting your god/goddess only to moan and complain when you won't raise them.

Hilarious.

Raising/resurrecting is IC, folks. Not to be "expected" OOC just because there is a cleric in the party. And please, please, please remember to have an imprinted Soul Stone in you character's inventory, otherwise it can also be "no Stone, no raise"(1).



(1) Okay, okay, not quite as catchy as "no ring, no write", but you get the point :p