For those people who are concerned with the direction their character goes ingame as well as the roleplay aspect, this question’s going to be a good read for all of us.
Have you ever purposely done something you knew would be way out of line for your character to actually do in reality? Were you were forced to make a tough decision that may or may not have worked for you either way?
Perhaps you died or permanently killed someone when your goal was to never die or kill in the Neath, and now you can’t leave ever again and it makes you cry at night. Or perhaps you had to resort to petty thievery to make ends meet even though you were opposed to anything that could be morally objectionable. (amorality is great!)
So what is the worst of those actions you’ve consciously done?
I can’t wait to hear all your answers.
If you would prefer to misinterpret the poll question as "If you had a strongly immoral character what would they relish most?" I would recommend not using the poll and adding it to your reply instead.
The most out of character decisions I’ve made have been for some in-game benefit.
However a choice that seems out of character, can actually turn out to define a deeper, richer character choice.
For instance, in the early days, I choose to side with Mr Fires during the Battle of Wolfstack Docks. I did this to get a point of Connected: Masters even though it is wildly out of character.
But, as the game went on, I played that as a bad decision the character had made. He did something he thought was wrong alongside someone he thought was evil in the hopes of gaining it’s favour. Your motivations become your character’s motivation.
And, subsequently, your regrets are your character’s regrets. Shame about siding with Mr Fires led to making some rather anti-Master’s positions later on, such as siding with The Revolutionaries even though he’s very anti-Liberation of Night. It’s an over correction for feeling such guilt about the battle.
You should always play the person and not the action. And make any decisions you don’t readily understand into an active choice.
Doing some of the things you’d think your character would never do can turn into making a more interesting character and more interesting story.
The fact that your poll and the title of your thread aren’t the same question might confuse people, but whatever :P
But for my character, it would probably be breeding the beasts in the Labyrinth of Tigers, as he is quite adamant that pets are family and you don’t kill/use/get rid of them for something better. I tried to justify it by saying he never brought the beasts he captured for breeding home and instead kept them at the Labyrinth like livestock, but it still seemed out of character for him.
Or maybe it was throwing a roll at his favorite wh*re’s…uh, I mean artist’s bald spot, as he actually adores the smirking mooch. But I really wanted to see what happened when you told him off, so I justified it by saying he woke my character up at 5 in the morning and therefore my character was very grouchy. Anyway, since he came back almost immediately to beg for more money, no lasting harm was done :P
On a more serious note, my character does genuinely regret and is haunted by the 6 deaths he is responsible for down here, but four were caused by mistakes on his part and one was self-defense, so I can’t really consider them “out of character” moments. Only one was a genuinely out of character murder, but that was forced on me by the narration and therefore not a conscious choice on my part so I can’t count it either. In fact I’m still rather irked about it as I was quite fond of the character and hated that the game forced me to send him off to the stewpot :P
I play a character who is strongly sympathetic to ratly concerns – despite being feline in nature. I allowed my liking of the carousel available to side with the Big Rat.
Once I realized what I’d done I recanted. I almost immediately spent Fate to reset the whole thing and redid it. In my head Absimiliard almost surely went to the Big Rat and quite formally declared their enmity before departing and beginning their hunt again.
That second time … . I led legions of rats in a rising up against their oppressor.
Going along with the Bishop’s plans of invading Hell was probably a bad idea, for my character. I mean, not all the devils are jerks, but the majority are. But what’s done is done, and there will be blood.
My main has done all of the top three actions in the poll; however, her only permanent kill was of a Black Ribboner who truly wished to die (and she still regrets the outcome of her encounter with the Contessa). She has sided with Outlaws and committed theft routinely, as part of her missions of finding the murderer(s) of her lover and bringing down Hell (she admits the two are likely unrelated. She does not betray, seldom has acted selfishly (her legacy Magnanimous at 26 attests to that representation), and has never encouraged ANYONE to seek the Name. edited by cathyr19355 on 6/14/2016
There are a number of actions my character has taken that would not work for his moral compass as is now, but I usually try and incorporate that into growth and change as a character - for example, siding with the devils early on and feeding them info about the planned Constable raid (which in retrospect, knowing the devils better, he regrets).
Oddly enough, the most OOC moral choice he has made is one he hasn’t…actually made yet. At some point, when Closest To: Rubbery Folk comes out, I’m going to have him switch from his current Closest To: Tomb-Colonists. THAT, in-universe, involves chasing them out of his dining room with the threat of burning them to presumably-permanent death. And THAT would be horrific for him to do character-wise, since not only does he enjoy the Tomb-Colonists but it would be an incredibly betrayal of their trust.
In anticipation, that will likely be the most OOC thing he’ll ever do. In retrospect…
Probably stealing from the sheer number of rubbery folk glim caravans and drunken rattus fabers as he’s done. There’s just no call for that and despite doing it for grinding reasons it’s still bad. Makes having the “an angel among thieves” book bittersweet really.
[quote=Hotshot Blackburn]There are a number of actions my character has taken that would not work for his moral compass as is now, but I usually try and incorporate that into growth and change as a character - for example, siding with the devils early on and feeding them info about the planned Constable raid (which in retrospect, knowing the devils better, he regrets).
Oddly enough, the most OOC moral choice he has made is one he hasn’t…actually made yet. At some point, when Closest To: Rubbery Folk comes out, I’m going to have him switch from his current Closest To: Tomb-Colonists. THAT, in-universe, involves chasing them out of his dining room with the threat of burning them to presumably-permanent death. And THAT would be horrific for him to do character-wise, since not only does he enjoy the Tomb-Colonists but it would be an incredibly betrayal of their trust.
In anticipation, that will likely be the most OOC thing he’ll ever do. In retrospect…
Probably stealing from the sheer number of rubbery folk glim caravans and drunken rattus fabers as he’s done. There’s just no call for that and despite doing it for grinding reasons it’s still bad. Makes having the "an angel among thieves" book bittersweet really.[/quote]
My main character’s most OOC action was to sell her soul–twice!–for gain. A lot of gain–Cantigaster’s Venom and a Fabulous Diamond respectively. In both cases, She intended to deal with the devils to obtain the items, but somehow failed to note that the marked price was her soul. (The first time, I was playing too fast and clicked when I shouldn’t have, and the second time I was tired and flat out misread the storylet.) Both times I paid the Fate cost to do the storylet chain to get her soul back.
And in retrospect maybe it’s not really so far OOC for her to have done that. She’s human, but she regularly deals with devils to maintain close contact so she can sabotage them. It’s only human, sometimes, for the mask to become the actor, if only briefly. edited by cathyr19355 on 6/14/2016
Or more accurately, get divorced. I’d been married to the Honey Sipping Jewel Thief for almost a year upon getting a proposal from a friend, a good one at that. I first said no, as I value my steadfast nature and a certain level of truthfulness to myself as an OOC person (and that particular part of the game was never going to be reflected in truth!)
I changed my mind, obviously :) though I am a bit surprised the divorce didn’t hit my Steadfast after all.
I only ever made the mandatory stealings to raise A Name Whispered in Shadow, and I found IC reasons for most of them (plus, I’m REALLY getting all the profit I ever had in stealings and then some to build an orphanage, I suppose my character would do that). I always buy things and discard any opp card related to stealing. Yet, I needed so many carnival tickets during my romance at the court and had so little IRL time to grind moon pearls and hints that I made an habit of stealing the darned tickets. That’s this weird feeling that my character is most decidedly buying the wretched things but I am pressing the wrong button and annoying her on purpose.
I’ve occasionally done OOC things for in-game benefits (or to get unique items).
For example, originally I’ve played the Affair of the Box siding with the Masters. However, when I’ve realized that this is significantly less profitable, I’ve switched sides.
On the other hand, there were occasions in which I’ve chosen to act in character even at the expense of in-game benefits, such as not getting banished from the court. (Or, you know, Seeking the Name)
I find that helping the Church and siding against Hell goes against my character’s morals, but I sided with the Bishop against Hell in the Dionysian Intrigue storyline. I just like that one, individual clergyman, I guess.
[quote=Nigel Overstreet]However a choice that seems out of character, can actually turn out to define a deeper, richer character choice.
…
You should always play the person and not the action. And make any decisions you don’t readily understand into an active choice.
Doing some of the things you’d think your character would never do can turn into making a more interesting character and more interesting story.[/quote]
Hear, hear.
With Myrto, my main, I have not yet been cut off from the court because that is pretty OOC. But eventually, I’ll have to do it, I suppose.
Early on, my main played the Trade in Souls and sided with the Shepherds. That’s not very in character, but I had an in-game reason at the time, which I can no longer remember. Eventually, I will replay it and choose Spirifer, I suppose.
[quote=Nigel Overstreet]The most out of character decisions I’ve made have been for some in-game benefit.
However a choice that seems out of character, can actually turn out to define a deeper, richer character choice.[/quote]Beautiful reasoning, sir. You’re the kind of player a Game Master usually adores: the one that tries to follow the narrative, instead of stopping everything and screaming "my character wouldn’t do THAT!"
Being coherent with your characterization is very important when roleplaying, but sometimes characters need a little push. It’s not about going OOC to follow the story; it’s just that stories are often about conflict, and they can be a lot more interesting if the character is unwilling to follow it - but does it anyway, for whatever reason.
As for me, the most orrible and OOC thing I did is passing boxed cats. Daniel is a ruthless, self-centred individual with no pity for you poor humans beings, but he likes cats.
He likes them a lot.
Killing people is okay. Torturing a kitty is off-limits.
You’re right! And my main DID feed several Coalmen (and at least one Vicar) to her plant! That’s very OOC for her and I’d completely forgotten about it! Ignore my former post. Arrgh!
My character has a remarkable tendency to get caught up in pursuits and foresake his usual goodhearted nature. The Cheesemonger is perhaps a prime example of this. He knew it was wrong to work against individuals in the name of the game, but he eventually justified it once he had an inkling of her plan that it was “for the greater good”. In truth, he simply got caught up. This doesn’t make him a bad sort, no, it just means that a little bit too much focus on doing the right thing means losing the smaller picture.
While my main avoids actions that harm others for no good reason, his casual kleptomania has always felt odd for me. He prefers shadowy actions like The Affair of the Box, where intrigue is the goal rather than theft. Presumably with all the theft he’s done, Mr. Secrets is now at least ambivalent to the constant theft he’s committed.
A potential planned OOC action would be gaining a Boneless Consort, since it would really help the BDR grind but they wouldn’t betray the Devout Intriguer.
For my alt, any action that benefits another person feels weird. Especially for mandated story lines, The Straveling Soldier would be quite happy to just murder his way through everyone between him and his goal rather than bother appeasing various factions. Really, they just want a heartless or a ruthless option on every card in the game. edited by ShroudedInLight on 6/14/2016 edited by ShroudedInLight on 6/14/2016