PDA

View Full Version : [Characters] I always play proles



Kiero
2009-01-11, 07:27 AM
This is something I've noticed recently, having gotten back into actual, face-to-face gaming again. While combat-ready generalists are my main schtick, there's another strand of commonality that my two characters have.

They're both commoners or peasants. I pretty much never play characters who are affluent, arisocratic or socially-connected. I'm quite happy to take poverty-related disadvantages and the like, and am rarely bothered by how much money my characters have.

In the WFRP game, in a party of four mine is the sole peasant. It's warranted comment from important NPCs who often assume he's a servant or underling of the other PCs, and generally don't know what to make of him. Of the other PCs we have a mage (who as someone educated and licensed is someone of import), a dwarven ex-merchant (who is also literate) and an elven prince (though his people are all dead).

In the SWSE game, I'm the common lad from Dantooine who didn't finish his formal education, before running off to see the stars. I've got the lowest Intelligence in the group (and also the highest Strength and Constitution). He's effectively the big dumb muscle in an otherwise socially-gifted and sophisticated group. That includes a scion of a powerful mining clan, a Jedi and a medic.

Funny thing is, it's not out of some kind of political stance, I'm not left wing by any means. But I tend to identify with common characters who've had ordinary upbringings.

Anyone else notice patterns like that, in terms of their characters' social class?

Deme
2009-01-11, 09:32 AM
I find that I'm more likely to have commoner characters than my main roleplaying friend, with some exceptions: also, when I do stray into nobility, it's usually fairly small-time nobility, or "child of the leader of a small and distant clan/trive." If I do a prince character, he's 98.9% likely lto be ost somehow (either he doesn't know, or his kingdom was taken over/got destroyed.) This may be because my primary roleplay friend tends to be fond of nobility, particularly princes/princesses of the Jasmine or Ariel mode...even the men. I'd say maybe 85% of her characters are nobility, with the remaining 15% are all supernatural beings bound to a weakended mortal form, and thus free of social class.

My characters, however, do usually have at least certain amount of education -- even if it's just having been taught their letters and numbers by their parent/local religious figure/whatever.

hewhosaysfish
2009-01-11, 09:34 AM
I wouldn't say that I tend to play common characters but that I tend to avoid playing noble ones. Just declaring that my character was prince or a lord or whatever would just feel a bit Mary Sue-ish. Titles earned in play are fair enough, though.

Of course, this could be because I tend to play in systems where there are no mechanics for social status (e.g. DnD). If I were playing something like Gurps where I could just throw some points down to make my character a nobleman then I would be more comfortable with it.

Zenos
2009-01-11, 09:38 AM
One pattern I've found in my characters is that they tend to have Draconic as a language, and are often lesser nobles on the run from somone they killed/betrayed/pissed off. Two of my characters, Orman the Bard (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=88506) and Naja the White Raven (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=101949)Warblade are examples of this. They also tend to be ex-officers trained at military academies.

Thanatos 51-50
2009-01-11, 10:48 AM
My characters tend to be on the run from something or other.

I have one who is the son of a minor noble, who was bred in a life of affluence, decided he hated it, and is your atypical "runaway prince" type character, he still bears some mannerisims and tell-tale physical signs (Exceptionally clean teeth, for example).
He ran as far away from his father's juristiction as possible and took a pseudonym to avoid being found out - then took in with an adventuring party and started helping his Fellow Man.

Another is an escaed slave, bearing the face-tattoo as a mark of his former owner. He used a racial ability (4e Shadar-Kai) to teleport out of the pens holding him and fled the country, stowing away on a trade caravan.
After going south, to a different country, he took up a wandering, mecenary-like lifestyle, the moajority of his jobs being guard postions on other trade caravans, and eventually made his way south, to the central maritime trade hub - where he found himself lost for direction, and took in with his current party.

Solaris
2009-01-11, 11:05 AM
'S funny, but I usually play intelligent commoners. Gerard Warwood, a fighter/unwilling paladin I've run in some of my games, is one of the smartest guys in the party, is literate, and is quite proud of the fact that he regularly takes out 'well-bred' knights with his carbine, throwing knives, dual-wielded longswords, and/or handaxe. A'course, he's also got issues involving repressed murderous bloodlust, a family curse, a serious death-wish carried out through taking on things he has no business fighting and then neglecting healing up afterwards, and the angel that's 'possessed' him (that's where the unwilling part of the paladin comes in). Most of my characters have something resembling bloodlust (repressed or not, it's there) and a death-wish. F'rinstance, a single-classed fighter specializing in mounted combat. Sure, the sorcerer/dragon disciple was better at melee than him, but he just enjoyed killing so much more than the uppity spell-slinger...
We tend to roleplay something resembling idealized versions/aspects of ourselves. Thus, the 'intelligent commoner', 'repressed bloodlust', and (sometimes) 'death-wish' traits make sense - they're traits I have.

I've only got a couple of aristocratic characters, and both are kinda jerks. Alistair Jude (my Forsaken and the Dragon players met him - he'll be important later, please don't kill him) is a snooty wizard with a nobleman's arrogance. Sebastian d'Cannith (my Eberron players met him) is just kinda obliviously arrogant. One of my oldest characters, though, is an exiled prince who's rather similar in personality to Gandalf. I'm thinking the few other aristocrats I've played since him have been aversions of that guy.

MisterSaturnine
2009-01-11, 01:06 PM
I seem to have a habit of making my characters former soldiers who've been captured and tortured in a war. They rarely end up the same as a result, and their reasons for enlisting in the first place varies, but it seems to be a common theme. I don't know why, but I've done it for at least three characters. And that's just off the top of my head. :smalleek:

Flickerdart
2009-01-11, 01:11 PM
I tend to mix it up, on the rare occasions that I'm on the wrong side of the DM screen. Honestly, I don't like any one character archetype enough to stick to it.

Satyr
2009-01-11, 02:31 PM
Since we normally play in games, where the social structure is often quite rigid and bound to traditional roles, the social stand of a character is extremely important (and often worth to invest some of the game starting ressources). I do not play highborn characters any more often than lowborn characters, but I think that the difference between them should be recognizable and lead to different game experiences. For one I have also a srong dislike for atempts to democraticise my beautiful feudal settings. That just doesn't feel right.

Delaney Gale
2009-01-11, 02:50 PM
My characters tend to be from well-heeled backgrounds, but end up making their way on their own reputation. It is a bit for realism- I tend to play clever, well-read or practiced characters, and at the time period most games take place in having book learnin' means your family has some amount of money.

Delaney (my namesake) was originally supposed to be the "Generic Neutral Evil Wizard" then in gameplay it came out that he's one of the three hereditary leaders of the setting's major city.

Jaxye was born to a merchant family and apprenticed to a dueling master in that city.

Peri was from a well-heeled elven family, but she skipped out on them after a couple levels in transmuter and became a tomb robber.

Michael was a journeyman brewer when his favored soul powers manifested, joined a mercenary company as a healer, and worked his way up the ranks to Lieutenant.

Reinhard von Abendroth was, as you might notice from the giant "look at me I'm a Junker" von, Prussian nobility. However, he doesn't deal with his family much- he's a vampire, so someone might notice that he hasn't aged since 1861, and he's the third son in the family so he wasn't really going to amount to much more than his academics. So, he just hangs out at the University of Leipzig, being a "linguist in the shadows", as his sire dubbed him.

sebsmith
2009-01-11, 05:56 PM
Odd, on further thought most of my characters have been more middle class. Of characters I remember they go as follows:

Nearly half-dozen human, elven, or half-elven rangers who never made it past first or second level.

A resistance leader who became one after her husband was killed by the evil empire.

A Elven Collegiate Wizard.

Three different young members of minor clans in various positions in their hierarchy.

A member of a prominent merchant house who joined the navy on a dare.

A middle class ex-government explorer.

Jera
2009-01-11, 06:36 PM
I almost always play Halflings with a goal to be able to cast True Resurection on an old character my DM had killed.

But now that I think about it, all of my characters come from Merchant families. While sometimes I may not be connected with the family any more(banished, family murdered etc), It rarely affects the game, but I can only think of one character inwhich he was not related to a merchant of some kind.

Tyrmatt
2009-01-11, 06:53 PM
My characters tend to be smart but not particularly wealthy. If he's a wizard, he learned his first steps as a houseboy or apprentice to a better wizard or a sorcerer who was taken in by the kindly old conjuror when an accidental magical outburst resulted in tragedy.

If he's a cleric, he tends to be the priest of a small congregation whose God has thrust him in the middle of a conflict. In a rather touching moment, I once returned to my old village between quests and the DM roleplayed the excited townspeople, happy to see me. They even presented me with a new holy symbol, my last one having been taken by the BBEG. Just what a tired (reasonably old too) priest needed after a harrowing battle that saw his side defeated and him only escaping with his life.

I also remember playing a fighter who was trained by the city militia during a bout of kobold attacks, his previous job having been working in a lumber yard, hefting big blocks and planks of wood all day. He often was at odds with the duellist of our group, who had training, class and money.

Assassin89
2009-01-11, 07:11 PM
In my first game of D&D, I was playing the 1e and as a wizard, I could not come up with much of a backstory.

In 3.5e, I play a cleric, meaning that I tend to play casters.

In terms of social class, I have my D&D character be relatively average.

Doomsy
2009-01-11, 07:55 PM
For some reason most of my characters tend to have some issues with authority. Oddly enough, they often come from military or otherwise disciplined backgrounds, usually having obtained some rank but not a lot of it, and tend to have developed a dislike for 'just do it' or bureaucratic style authority.

Aron Times
2009-01-11, 08:13 PM
Hm...

My main character, Aron Times, was a sorcerer from Soros, a human magocracy in the Shores of Haldun server in Neverwinter Nights 2. Basically, he came from a place like Thay, except not as evil.

Sorans are typically very condescending towards people from other countries, but Aron was very friendly and open to new ideas from other cultures. Basically the last person you'd expect to cause trouble in the server.

And then I got banned without getting the chance to defend myself. No warnings, no reprimands, nothing to indicate beforehand that I had done something wrong.

Before I was banned, Aron was working on creating a public school in New Haldun, the main city of the server. The Haldar do not have a public education system, and Aron feels that education would open up opportunities for them (and make them more acceptable to the elitist Sorans).

I guess getting banned from the server was a blessing in disguise. The DMs basically encouraged Sorans to plot against each other, and it made getting anything done very difficult. Having to jump through hoops made by a higher-ranking fellow Soran (who happened to be another player) was a bit too annoying.

I guess I'm getting off-topic, but what I'm getting at is that plotting and scheming against fellow player characters, especially those who belong to your faction, does not make for an enjoyable roleplaying experience for those at the receiving end.

Neon Knight
2009-01-11, 08:17 PM
I rarely play commoners; middle class or whatever comes closest to it is most likely for me, with the occasional dips into nobility of lesser rank/importance.

shadow_archmagi
2009-01-11, 08:36 PM
I tend to play nerds. This is partly because I can't help but memorize things and must justify it lest I metagame, and partly because I like having an excuse to use my own INT score to the fullest.

Ascension
2009-01-11, 09:03 PM
I play a lot of high-charisma, low-wisdom characters, who generally have a penchant for bluffing and improvising their way both into and out of trouble. Sometimes these are high-status individuals, but they're just as likely to be lying about their nobility/riches/etc., and even if they aren't, they're pretty much always going to be the black sheep everybody in the family disapproves of. A lot of them can be jerks, but they've almost all got a warm gooey center of a heart somewhere in there.

Now this is hardly universal, but I'd say if my characters tend towards any particular archetype, that's it.

Dacia Brabant
2009-01-11, 09:12 PM
I always play highly educated characters, which almost invariably means they come from a middle-class or better background. The ones who are of actual noble stock don't tend to make a big deal about it or ignore it altogether, usually because they have something they consider more important going on. My two current active characters are good examples of that:

My TacLord, son of a tribe leader from a Nordic-type barbarian clan (the left-over inhabitants of a fallen empire), had turned his back on the clan homeland and religion: after learning to read from a dwarf merchant-mage who'd made his home with the tribe for some time, he'd become enamored with learning his race's lost imperial history and saw the disorderly, static ways of his clan as what was holding them back from greatness. He followed the dwarf back to his homeland and received more formal study before venturing out into the wider world, intending to obtain such wealth and fame that he could organize and lead his own army, go back to his people, conquer them and remake his fatherland into the glorious empire it once was.

My Paladin, daughter of a knight who died foolishly, is another one who left her noble family although she did so at a very young age with her aunt, who fled because of plans to sell them into slavery (just because they were noble didn't mean they were rich, at least not after daddy died). First intent on becoming a priestess, musician and scholar, she later manifested great divine strength during a kidnapping attempt and soon became a knight like dear old dad, only not quite. She believes in brain over brawn and she's still a teacher more than a fighter, so her goal in all this is to train good, smart warriors to become good, smart leaders and strategists who will spread these ways wherever they go.

It's interesting how they ended up as parallels of each other but with different motivations, one very much Good and the other very much not.

KevLar
2009-01-11, 09:44 PM
These days, I'll play anything at all. What have you got?

Commoners are awesome. In settings where peasants are the overwhelming majority (read: most), playing one is a very good way to put things into perspective. Not that it's a prerequisite, of course. And I absolutely adore games where the biggest challenge is not killing the monster, but getting past the people, who, though lower level than you, have more authority.

Middle class is awesome. Depending on the setting, it offers a wide variety of professions, guilds, and backgrounds you can choose from. In fact, middle class (with separate upper and lower layers? just one and rather unimportant? strong and rising in power?) is what "nails" a setting's distinctiveness, since the rest are pretty much a given. You can choose any direction for your character from there.

Aristocracy is awesome. Why aren't you lying idly on a sofa with a glass of wine surrounded by bodyguards, but sleeping in the mud in a monster-infested forest? You must have a reason. Mary Sues are a danger here, but with experience, it's nothing you can't handle.

Mixed groups are awesome. I don't particularly like PvP (unless it's explicitly stated from the beginning), but this unnatural bonding of the average party, no matter what sort of person is everyone, gets into my nerves. A group where everyone has his place socially, when handled maturely, is great. You don't even need encounters to have fun and do your character development thingy.

The only thing which I do NOT find awesome is this odd social class called "adventurers". :smalltongue: In my games and in games I play in general, if adventuring is what defines you socially, you're doing it wrong.


We tend to roleplay something resembling idealized versions/aspects of ourselves.
Exactly. This is so true. :)
Except that, once you realize it (because I don't think you do it consciously, it's just a natural tendency), it gets slightly boring (or unsettling, in certain cases), and you really want to try new things.

My favorite archetype (which is, admittedly, simply myself in a thin disguise, and indeed a prole) still creeps into my characters from time to time, but these days I value variety (and twisting archetypes until they break down and shout "I yield, I yield!") more than anything.

Solaris
2009-01-12, 12:28 AM
Exactly. This is so true. :)
Except that, once you realize it (because I don't think you do it consciously, it's just a natural tendency), it gets slightly boring (or unsettling, in certain cases), and you really want to try new things.

My favorite archetype (which is, admittedly, simply myself in a thin disguise, and indeed a prole) still creeps into my characters from time to time, but these days I value variety (and twisting archetypes until they break down and shout "I yield, I yield!") more than anything.
Indeed. I actually find it helpful for roleplaying the character to understand how he's like me and how he's different from me, personality-wise. Even the characters who, on the surface, seem as different from me as night and day actually have a lot in common with me. The stuff we have in common is just stuff I don't show much and they do. Otherwise, the character tends to seem like... I'unno, an artificial construct, something that seems to fake to really like.

Lycar
2009-01-12, 03:48 PM
Hmm. Judging from the characters I have (tried) to play on these boards alone, I would say I am very predisposed towards playing humans.

What can I say? I'm addicted to skill points and feats. :smallbiggrin:

The point is, I prefer warrior/fighter types with a little 'extra'.

Be it the middle class weaponsmith/mechanic, who gets obsessed about those self-made spring-action hand-crossbows and tries to dual-wield them, the lower class thug/street urchin, who gets nabbed by the guards and gets to chose between dungeon or militia service and ends up wielding a bastard sword and a buckler, because the combo is so versatile, or the son of Landless Nobility background, who joins a military academy (read: White Raven Warblade training) to become an officer one day.

Of course, the most fun I had in a game where my bard was a nth son of minor noble, who got 'volunteered' to serve as a spy for the local overlord, after an intrigue his sire involved him blew up in his face. He was a stricktly unoptimized bard with a pair of Spymaster levels thrown in. He was squishy and knew it. The most he did was buff his party and then hide behind them. Until he got Good Hope and accidently inflicted a case of testosterone poisioning on himself and whacked a pair of mooks with his quarterstaff.

When he came down from his high, he excused himself from the batlefield to be physically sick. :smalltongue:

And he actually got to use his disguise skill, since he managed to become a very valuable man (read: big bounty on his head). Fun was had by all as he posed as noble scholar and later as a big bad barbarian (who wasn't as strong as he used to be because he got.. cursed.. yeah that's the ticket).

Did I mention he had a high Bluff skill? :smallwink:


But generally I prefer characters that go right up and personal on anything. Let the casters have their fun with the spellcasting, I prefer to hack the opposition inty to tiny little bits. But with feats. :smallbiggrin:

Lycar

Tacoma
2009-01-12, 04:09 PM
When I started playing our DM was usually wary of PCs with wealthy backgrounds. Even if you were from a noble family they might not be wealthy, and also even if they were wealthy there are plenty of reasons they don't give you access to any of it. But starting characters tended to be poor, newbie, first-level traveler kind of people. That was everyone who played, not just me. But I think this had affected my gaming style because I still don't play noble characters.

That said, 1E Cavaliers had significant benefits associated with social class. You rolled, and it was always preferable to be of a higher class. I generally didn't play cavaliers though. The one I did play ended up with Middle Middle social class which kind of sucked. But I quickly decided to make him Chaotic Good, no horse, just a wandering swordsman - not really what they had in mind when designing the Cavalier I suppose.

Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction away from the powergamer attitude, where if given a "20 questions" list about his character a powergamer would at least try to make his character come from a wealthy background.

Talya
2009-01-12, 10:18 PM
My last few D&D characters:


Bard - bastard daughter of a trickster god (She's actually got the half celestial template using SKR's Savage Progressions scheme, so it works.)

Ranger/Swordsage - nomadic scout among a tribe of goliaths

Sorceress - former harem slave.

Fairly diverse, i think.

Ravyn
2009-01-15, 08:30 PM
My characters as a class have a tendency towards snarky dialogue and using anything that comes to hand to their advantage (my primary's idea of fun tended to involve solving her problems using nearby NPCs, random facts, institutions, and creative reinterpretations of her own abilities).

I also do people with a penchant for secret identities a lot, whether it's only one good one or a tendency to toss on temporary identities like hats. A couple even have name lists so I can keep who they are at any given time straight.

And then there's stupid heroics. Now, this doesn't mean idiotic suicidal stunts that technically should get them killed. It means stunts that look idiotic and suicidal that have the overall benefit of turning the fight into something of their advantage, and have the added bonus of seriously inflating their reputations.

Occasionally I combine these. Those characters get scary.

AvatarZero
2009-01-16, 07:07 AM
I like playing the odd man out in the group. Sometimes this means a chaotic alignment-style character, but since in most of the DnD games I play chaotic good is the default alignment I'm much more likely to play the only person in the group with morals about stealing or desecrating the dead (which happens way too often). I don't play Paladins or characters who insist that everyone else follows the same rules though, since I'm sure that would be irritating.

I like being the only one in the group who even thinks to negotiate with the goblins. Or just beat up the pushy guard. I feel like the decisions the party ends up making in the game are too predictable and too default if there's only one good way to deal with a situation, especially when it seems like that one solution has been presented to you by the DM.

Maxymiuk
2009-01-16, 08:31 AM
Let's see...


A drifter Silent Runner (WoD) without home or caern.

A Charioteer (Fading Suns) with a knack for driving and maintaining everything built by man, mentally scarred by a war that cost him his arm, scraping by from job to job.

A common thief on a run from a dragon he managed to piss off.

A mercenary that went looking for new employment after his company got wiped out.

A teenage hoodlum caught between his hard-handed but honest father and his friends from the street.

A former town guard who went wandering the world after his mother died of the flu.

A former town guard who went wandering the world after setting his younger brother up with an apprenticeship in a profitable trade.


Yeah, I definitely tend towards commoner/drifter types. Another tendency I've noticed, is that most of my characters are stuck on the fringes of society, incapable of being part of it - additionally, they're usually lost in some way, searching for a purpose in life, or a cause to follow, while simultaneously being wary of anything that seems to offer an "easy" solution.

I agree with what someone else said - if my character is to gain status, recognition, fame, or what have you, I want to feel that he's earned it through his efforts.

prufock
2009-01-16, 10:28 AM
I tend to play the "straight man." My characters are generally non-superstitious, atheistic, analytical, practical, lawful. They're often members of large, authoritarian organizations, like mage's guilds or policing forces.

For example:
Gavin Hutch - metahuman, member of the Watch (a worldwide government task force made up of metas and charged with policing metas and mutants). Atheist, doesn't believe in magic, doesn't like to use magic. Prefers guns, bombs, etc. Tactical mind.

Audric Ashmore - wizard, conjurer, member of the mage's guild. Atheist, treats magic like a science. Also likes to build things, likes to see how they work. Studious, practical, likes to assess and prepare.

DECKER - formerly a rogue hacker, now Lord High Inquisitor of the Sith army. Atheist, doesn't give 2 cents about the force, likes guns and machines.

Of course, I have other ideas of characters to play that are quite the opposite of these guys (a solipsist gnome illusionist, for instance), but I end up playing these hard-nosed types.

FatherMalkav
2009-01-16, 11:48 AM
I tend toward blue collar/no collar, no idea why. They also tend to be socially inept in one way or another.

WoD
Bone Gnawer Ragabash with a foul attitude
Unseelie Redcap Mechanic who curses like a sailor
Tzimece who was never human, but just a culmination of parts

DnD
Nizumi Monk/Binder in a Rokugon game
Wild Elf Barbarian/Bear Warrior who had never been down from the mountains before
Grey Elf Archivist who had a book dropped on his head one time too many.

You see the pattern.