PDA

View Full Version : Are there things you insist on in your characters?



Jubal_Barca
2011-08-14, 12:56 PM
Essentially, as the topic says. Are there some classes, archetypes (not thinking too system specific), or simply features of characters that you would NEVER play a character with, regardless?

Examples I guess might be if you would never play a non-combat character, or never play an unsympathetically evil character, or whatever.

In my case, it's intelligence & wisdom. I will never, ever, play a dumb character, because I suck at it. I don't mind being a wisecracking evil swordsman from a poor human family, or a LN Dwarf priest, or (as I currently am) a NG half-elf wizard from a noble bloodline. But I really, really, can't play the big dumb fighter roles (or the "let's just blast stuff" wizard, equally). I was mostly just wondering if anyone else had similar things that were constant regardless of their character.

randomhero00
2011-08-14, 01:04 PM
For some odd reason I refuse/hate to play bards. Other than that...

(I guess I dislike the fact that music can = magic)

Siosilvar
2011-08-14, 01:14 PM
For some odd reason I refuse/hate to play bards. Other than that...

(I guess I dislike the fact that music can = magic)

Invisible airwaves crackle with life
Bright antennae bristle with the energy

Emotional feedback on a timeless wavelength
Bearing a gift beyond price, almost free
Magic as music makes more sense to me than magic as science, and I'm planning on getting an engineering degree!

I'd have a hard time playing a character with more than one below-average "mental" attribute (Int/Wis/Cha), and at least one has to be ~14 or above. At the same time, I don't think I could play with all three as high scores. Working around flaws is a good roleplaying challenge, but when I don't connect well with the character, that doesn't work either.

Usually the high stat is Intelligence, but that makes it a bit too easy for me to play...

Morghen
2011-08-14, 01:17 PM
Almost nothing is off-limits when I'm making a character.

Low wisdom? Cool. That's me IRL.
Low strength? Cool. I'll figure out other ways to get things done.
Evil? Cool. I'm doing it right now.
Good? Uh... maybe. It's been a while.

Low intelligence? Nope. Can't do it. That's the one deal-breaker. I don't care if I'm playing a Fighter, a Cleric, a Barbarian, whatever. I can't play a dumb character.

Yukitsu
2011-08-14, 01:31 PM
That they be the kind of person I would hire and pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gold for the kind of work implied by the setting. So no "oh woe is my, I'm a tragic figure who thinks only of poorly fulfilling a single archetype" or other such malarkey, because I'd probably not let him pass employment screening, let alone get the job.

wuwuwu
2011-08-14, 01:35 PM
I am not allowed to play a character that is competent at anything. The dice don't usually agree with what I want to do, so I've resigned myself to playing characters that don't control their own fate (the only ones I can think of are Crusaders and Wilders)

It's cool playing a mechanically sound character whose incompetence is enforced by poor dice rolls, though. I could seriously play Pun-Pun and be incompetent.

edit: Also, I shy away from characters with high Wis, Int, or Cha, as an excuse for my poor decision making and generally unsound tactics (even if they are poor decisions/unsound tactics only after I miserably fail)

Timeless Error
2011-08-14, 01:40 PM
I also cannot stomach playing a low-Intelligence character, and in fact, I would definitely prefer to have all my characters with their highest stat in Intelligence (which is annoying, since I prefer to play mundane, melee combat characters). I also prefer to play characters that wear little or no armor, although I'm not as strongly opposed to that as I am to playing imbeciles.

EDIT: I just remembered: I don't like magic items. I want my characters to survive and become legends based on their skill alone, not because they happen to be rich enough to buy some shiny trinkets that boost their abilities to insane heights, no matter how incompetent they may be otherwise.

Blisstake
2011-08-14, 01:48 PM
Generally speaking, I don't allow my mental attributes to rule how I roleplay. If I'm playing a ranger or whatever, and I don't want him to be stupid, then I don't roleplay him as such, even if his intelligence is 8.

Anyway, I absolutely won't play "holy warrior" type characters, specifically paladins. I've played a few clerics before, but for some reason, paladins have never interested me one bit.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-14, 01:52 PM
I can't play an evil character. To play a character well, I must like them, and there are very, very few evil characters in fiction or anywhere I like. And most of those I like as characters but admit are awful people.

I used to be in the "can't play a dumb character" camp, but they're not really that hard to play and can be quite enjoyable when played as loud, hammy and/or funny morons.


Generally speaking, I don't allow my mental attributes to rule how I roleplay. If I'm playing a ranger or whatever, and I don't want him to be stupid, then I don't roleplay him as such, even if his intelligence is 8.

I disagree with this approach. Stats represent your character, someone with low intelligence doesn't have to be a drooling moron, but he is dim and not a fast thinker and should be roleplayed as such.

Kurald Galain
2011-08-14, 01:54 PM
Looking back at my play history, it seems that I really don't like clerics (or indeed, any divine-oriented character other than druids). I've played pretty much everything else at some point.

Telasi
2011-08-14, 02:13 PM
I greatly prefer stats that are average across the board to min-maxed anything characters. This isn't a huge problem most of the time, since most GMs I play with use point buy, but it does mean that I tend to be marginally less powerful than the more min-maxing players.

I also don't like being item-dependent in a heroic fantasy game like D&D. This is problematic because I enjoy playing melee quite a bit. While magic items aren't strictly necessary to these characters, it's significantly harder to be effective without them. Given the choice between a feat and a magic item that do the same thing, I prefer the feat because I can't have that taken from me.

In modern/future games where it's appropriate, I tend to have computer skills.

starwoof
2011-08-14, 03:17 PM
I never leave home without my spiked gauntlets.

Jubal_Barca
2011-08-14, 03:34 PM
My last three characters;

- Shadowrun, Dwarf P.I, mostly went on intelligence and getting lots of useful contacts and negotiation skills. And a "for the luls" battleaxe. We ended up on a short campaign where all that was pretty much nerfed, except the axe. We all died at the end of arc 1 anyway.

- WHFRP, Halfling Political Agitator. Best. Role. Ever. Again, nerfed in a campaign where we were just trucking through a forest fighting beastmen, but still. Intelligence and an ability to cook bagels got me a long way here.

- DnD 1st, Half-Elf wizard. Again, brain over brawn since my backstory was that I was being trained to be a magic'd up politician essentially, sleep and charm person were my first two spells. We actually got past the first (again combatty) campaign arc for once, and suddenly and miraculously we got into a more town-based setting with negotiations and I was USEFUL. Meanwhile the remaining four players, all combat classes (and the rogue who joined for the second arc) suddenly found that "the law" existed. Result? 3 of the party running out of town, and me getting a free coach ride to the capital city with the remaining two following behind at a distance. :smallwink:

navar100
2011-08-14, 03:56 PM
I am incapable of playing a Rogue. I do not have the mindset, strategy, or tactics necessary to play it well. I fully accept that being a Rogue does not automatically mean being a thief.

I play with a character tax. Must have at least 14 Con. I think I did play once with a 12 Con but under extenuating circumstances.

I will only play humans, voluntarily. If a particular game convention one shot adventure requires a non-human, that's ok, but of a regular campaign I will only play humans. I admit, trying out a warforged is intriguing, though.

Remmirath
2011-08-14, 04:11 PM
I won't play a character with an intelligence below eight, and usually not below ten - but I won't go below eight ever, unless they are essentially a joke character.

I usually also won't play a character with a charisma below eight, but that's a less firm rule and partly due to not wanting to inflict such an unlikeable person on the rest of the party (my characters with that low of charisma seem to have a bad track record for living, too).

Also for stats, I dislike having all good stats in a character. I try to make sure they have at least one poor stat, and ideally also at least one average one. These usually end up being in wisdom and (dependant on class) either strength or dexterity. Sometimes con, if I'm feeling like living dangerously.

I generally also refuse to play non-core classes, because I dislike the majority of them. There are exceptions, though, so it's not a hard rule (the exceptions are mostly from the Draconomicon for dragon characters, though).

I dislike druids, but I will sometimes play them for a change. I've never had one I really liked, though.

I won't play monks. Not only does the class suck, but I just can't get into the mindset right. I used to be the same way with paladins and anti-paladins, but I've gotten past that and have a fair amount of them now.

I don't play gnomes. I don't like gnomes. I rarely play halflings or half-orcs, either, but I have upon occasion.

Oh, also I won't play support caster/battlefield control types - I find them tiresome to play and not nearly useful enough to make up for the boredom.

Frozen_Feet
2011-08-14, 04:13 PM
I don't have any "I will never..." things for characters, really. I sometimes purposefully craft or pick a character that pushes me out of my comfort zone to grow as a writer/narrator/player/whatever. There are many, many traits I dislike, but I've often incorporated them as well in my characters to deconstruct them, to see or show what's the problem with them.

Of course, this leads to interesting epiphanies from time to time. When I write a character, I try to get in their head as well as I can, which leads to a certain sort of myopia about how their actions seem in the greater context of things. However, when I reread my own texts, that gets turned off, and I see my characters in alltogether different light. For example, once I played an oafish older man who also happened to be horrifically irate and violent, with little capacity for empathy despite being ostensibly sane. His whole concept was basically "this is an awful, awful person", but looking back at him, I am appalled by how much a jerk I actually made him.

Totally Guy
2011-08-14, 04:15 PM
I've only roleplayed one female. And she was a dwarf. :smallcool:

Pigkappa
2011-08-14, 04:17 PM
I never end up playing characters who can't cast any spell. Even when I decide to do that, I change my mind just before the game starts and I switch to something else.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-08-14, 04:44 PM
I never play Evil characters. Ever.

Antonok
2011-08-14, 05:00 PM
Anything but Dwarves. In my 10 or so years of playing DnD I have not ever played a Dwarf. I've made a few with the intent of forcing myself to play them, but when it gets down to gametime, I can't do it.

This even extends over into other games. I can't even stand to play as Gimli in the LotR's games, or any other game that has dwarves as a playable race.

I just can't stand em, and have in the past played characters with the sole purpose of commiting dwarf genocide. (And ironically enough on this subject, I here recently got upgraded from halfing in the playground to dwarf... -_-)

ghost_warlock
2011-08-14, 05:04 PM
Looking back at my play history, it seems that I really don't like clerics (or indeed, any divine-oriented character other than druids). I've played pretty much everything else at some point.

Ditto. The second character I ever created was a cleric, and it was also the last one. I generally just dislike divine fluff. I've played a fair number of fallen paladins, though, and played a paladin of the Raven Queen for a few sessions last fall.

Even before druids got switched to the "primal" power source in 4e, though, I considered them separate from the usual gaggle of sycophants and special-pleaders that make up the ranks of divine characters. :smallyuk:

Possibly related, I generally prefer my characters to be as self-sufficient as possible. Working as part of a group is fine, but I don't like having to depend on other characters/archetypes being present to remain effective. Of course, for the current season of encounters I'm turning that on its head and playing a kobold tactical warlord. :smalltongue:

Edit: I also dislike dwarves, but I'm nothing if not pragmatic and if it's the best shoe to fit the stubby little foot...

Comet
2011-08-14, 05:26 PM
I only want to play characters that are noticeably human, mentally at least. People are the most interesting thing in any form of fiction, so I really have a hard time justifying the use of monsters and abstract spirits and such as anything other than alien phenomena to be bypassed or barely understood by the actual main characters.

valadil
2011-08-14, 06:21 PM
I can't play an incompetent character. My character needs to have something to contribute to the party. Other than that, I'm usually happy to play whatever.

Blisstake
2011-08-14, 06:56 PM
I disagree with this approach. Stats represent your character, someone with low intelligence doesn't have to be a drooling moron, but he is dim and not a fast thinker and should be roleplayed as such.

Yes, they represent your character, but they can also restrict your creativity if you limit yourself to roleplaying certain types based on what statistics you have. I understand why someone would want them to match, but I couldn't stand holding in a witty remark just because my character wouldn't be bright enough to say it.

Kerrin
2011-08-14, 07:04 PM
I don't play characters with tragic backgrounds because it's an overdone theme.

I find I can create the same motivations in characters with other backstories.

Objection
2011-08-14, 07:26 PM
Since the only characters I've created so far have been wizards, I can't really say much here. However, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable playing a character with <12 intelligence or >12 charisma.

NikitaDarkstar
2011-08-14, 07:53 PM
There's two things I have serious issues with. One is low INT, I can deal with average without an issue, but actually low int? No, not happening. Even my barbarians get somewhere between 10-12.

The other thing is Lawful characters. I just can't do it. Neutral or Chaotic? Yes, and anywhere on the good/evil axis sure, but lawful? Even if I write Lawful (it has happened) I end up getting an alignment change handed to me by the DM faster than anything.

Saintheart
2011-08-14, 08:19 PM
I can't play an evil character. To play a character well, I must like them, and there are very, very few evil characters in fiction or anywhere I like. And most of those I like as characters but admit are awful people.

This. If I'm going to spend literally hours and hours of my free time being inside the head of a virtual person, I don't want to it to be Hannibal Lecter's. :smallsmile:

Dienekes
2011-08-14, 08:40 PM
I'm a GM so I try to do just about everything. However I am not good at angst, and more or less refuse to do it.

Not that a character can't be sad, or angry, those I can handle fine. But a character that is supposed to actually believe that "woe is me" I just find annoying in real life and in games.

I also am absolutely terrible at playing girls. But I do it anyway, which tend to leave my party in stitches.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-14, 09:00 PM
I just can't stand em, and have in the past played characters with the sole purpose of commiting dwarf genocide.

Dem's fightin' words.

As for me, I can't play a character who has both low intelligence and wisdom.

Iceforge
2011-08-14, 09:02 PM
Anything but Dwarves. In my 10 or so years of playing DnD I have not ever played a Dwarf. I've made a few with the intent of forcing myself to play them, but when it gets down to gametime, I can't do it.

This even extends over into other games. I can't even stand to play as Gimli in the LotR's games, or any other game that has dwarves as a playable race.

I just can't stand em, and have in the past played characters with the sole purpose of commiting dwarf genocide. (And ironically enough on this subject, I here recently got upgraded from halfing in the playground to dwarf... -_-)

Second this.

I dislike dwarves with a passion, in 3rd and 3.5 I also find them to be the class with some of the weakest racials, maybe due to my general dislike of anything that has to be primarily melee.

Anyone who has this same dislike of being a dwarf ever experienced how some people are just die-hard dwarf-fans and thinks dwarves is the best thing since bread?

Once found a cursed item that turned my character into a dwarf, had a timelimit on how long I could have it on before the effect would become permanent, due to our resources at the time, it was an actual impossibility bar a GM intervention for me to get rid of it.

Fortunately, even tho the GM was a die-hard dwarf fan, once I explained quite clearly to him that I would have my character go suicidal and have him killed within a session, should it become permanent, he made a way for me to get rid of the item and the curse; He had, until then, viewed it as sort of "yeah, it is cursed, but it gives you a huge advantage, so it is actually a super item!" situation.

For me, while playing a character temporarily cursed to be a dwarf was alright, the idea of it becoming permanent would make the character unplayable.

WarKitty
2011-08-14, 09:38 PM
I have trouble with any sort of pure melee character. When I want to do melee, I usually turn to a caster base. Druid or Bard works fine.

The one thing I absolutely cannot play is TN. I just can't manage a TN character that has the goals required to go out and be an adventurer. I've tried, but it just results in a character that would much rather go out and be a craftsman or merchant than an adventurer.

Fiery Diamond
2011-08-14, 10:06 PM
As a DM I can do quite a bit more, since the NPCs don't need to have me in their head for nearly as long. But tagalong NPCs follow my same list of "will nots" as PCs. In either case, I will not do evil characters who commit sexual evils - even for main villains. It's one of my taboos. Also, as a DM I don't allow evil PCs unless I think that the player can do a very good job of it and prevent their character from running afoul of my sensibilities.

As a player, though:

-Low Int. NO WAY. I have at least a 14 IRL (and have had people claim to me that I have more) and my biggest prejudice that I struggle with in real life is my prejudice against unintelligent people. So no, I'm not going to play one.

-Evil characters. I almost always play Good characters. I might play an evil character of the "I'm normally a paragon of goodness, but when it comes to vile villains that I hate, I will RIP THEM TO BLOODY TORTURED SHREDS with no remorse!" type, but that's the only exception.

-Sexist or racist characters. I hate sexism and racism with such a fiery burning passion that...yeah.

-Promiscuous characters.

-Drug addled characters.

-Excessively low charisma characters.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-08-14, 10:11 PM
-Sexist or racist characters. I hate sexism and racism with such a fiery burning passion that...yeah.

I forgot to add that to mine. I'll never play a sexist character, and the closest thing I might ever play to a racist character is a goliath/half-giant/whatever who thinks the only thing gnomes are good for is thrown weapons. And that would have to be a silly campaign.

NikitaDarkstar
2011-08-15, 01:49 AM
I forgot to add that to mine. I'll never play a sexist character, and the closest thing I might ever play to a racist character is a goliath/half-giant/whatever who thinks the only thing gnomes are good for is thrown weapons. And that would have to be a silly campaign.
I'm slightly on the fence of this one. Well sexists characters are a big no-no for me. ome jokes, yes sure, but actually sexist and serious about it? No.

Racist however? It depends on the setting and the race. If it's a setting where good and evil exist as black and whites that drow will need to be really convincing and talk really fast to convince by half-bronze dragon that he's and exception from the rule. But then it's not so much racism as common sense.

A more modern campaign, or at least one with more shades of grey and where good and evil just depends on point of view and thus no race is truly good or truly evil? No, I couldn't play a character that hated race X simply because of reason Y. (On the other hand I quite enjoy settings that are filled with racism, prejudice and so on because I like to take a character that's from a a race/class/whatever that's normally looked down upon/socially unacceptable and make it work.)

Dimers
2011-08-15, 04:20 AM
Yes, they represent your character, but they can also restrict your creativity if you limit yourself to roleplaying certain types based on what statistics you have. I understand why someone would want them to match, but I couldn't stand holding in a witty remark just because my character wouldn't be bright enough to say it.

I don't hold 'em in. I make the witty remark OOC, or offer it to a fellow player whose character does have good Int. Likewise for smart or complex plans. I've successfully played low-brainpower characters in multiple groups with this technique, though it sometimes takes the GM and other players a while to groove on it with me.

OP: I always have to have good breadth of skill, or failing that, good ways to address numerous problems using non-skill abilities (like stone shape, polymorph and prestidigitation spells). I don't have much fun if I can't participate in lots of encounters. Ditto for senses. I want scent, illusion-piercing, arcane sight, radar, awareness of nearby supernatural entities, everything. But there's really not much I won't do in terms of character. As long as it's broadly skilled, that's all I really need.

Yora
2011-08-15, 07:11 AM
I guess I never dump any stat. I start everything at least at average and only when I play a completely non-combat character I may go for slightly below average strength, but that's it.

dsmiles
2011-08-15, 07:24 AM
I can pretty much play whatever, but it can't have any "good" in it's alignment descriptor (DnD, and any other game with an alignment-type mechanic). I just can't be the good guy. I hate it.

starwoof
2011-08-15, 07:34 AM
I hate being 'bad' at anything. By that I mean that I hate having ability scores below ten, so usually I have a bunch of middle numbers than a few high ones. I tend to play dwarves, warforged, and hobgoblins though, so my cha is generally between 8 and 5.:smallbiggrin:

Nyarai
2011-08-15, 12:41 PM
I'm the same way, Starwoof. Though my love of party facing means Cha's usually my #1/#2 stat.

I don't like prepared casters. They turn me into a walking definition for 'indecision paralysis.' :smallfrown:

Fiery Diamond
2011-08-15, 12:44 PM
I don't like having scores below 10 either, and I definitely won't have any scores go below 8. I tend to like higher-powered (stat-wise, not necessarily optimization-wise) characters. Basically, the Heroic Array (18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8) is seen by me as sort of a minimum requirement, though stat points might be moved around from that array on a 1-for-1 exchange. A 16,16,14,12,10,10 character is appealing, for example. I've never understood how the "elite" array could possibly be considered powerful enough to be fun... when creating NPCs, I generally work off the Heroic Array except for mooks, who get the Elite Array plus a few points. Only out-of-the-book monsters get to keep their lackluster base stats.

I'm not particularly fond of prepared casters, but wizards truly irk me. My ideal would be a a spontaneous caster with spell level progression at odd levels (like the wizard) and spells per day like the sorcerer but twice as many spells known as the sorcerer. Also, metamagic not taking extra time.

Choco
2011-08-15, 01:05 PM
I can play practically anything, and in fact enjoy playing something I am not more than I do something I think I am (unless playing it involves skills I don't have, of course), but one thing all my characters always have in common is they MUST have levels upon levels of protection against any sort of mental influence/compulsion/possession/etc. All of my D&D characters eventually get some form of permanent "immune to mind affecting effects" feature, preferably something like the Occult Slayer class feature in that it cannot be dispelled or otherwise taken away, all of my Exalted characters have super high MDV's and multiple perfect-defense charms, even if they are not social characters at all, etc.

Basically anything that can take even the smallest bit of control over my character away from me doesn't sit well with me, so I pad all my characters with mad defenses in that regard. Also anyone who tries to break through said defenses, whether they be PC or NPC, gets introduced to the business end of my <insert whatever weapon/spell I like to use here> to make sure they can't do it again.

Why am I so hardcore about this? I was in a group once where 2 of the PC's thought that you solve disagreements by using compulsions to get those disagreeing with you to go along. That game was not fun at all for the short time I put up with it, for obvious reasons.

big teej
2011-08-15, 03:20 PM
the only thing I can think of is despising the druid...

I'm currently working very very very very very hard to come up with a concept that uses the druid chasiss, but so far.... I've got nothing.


the closest I've come is a "summoner" but...


still.

crazywolf
2011-08-15, 03:58 PM
i know a guy who has a personal Vendetta against Gnomes, his Half-Orc once punted a random gnome citizen 25 feet.
I will never play a monk, i just don't like that class.

Dr.Epic
2011-08-15, 04:05 PM
Things I insist on my character...well usually pants. But sometimes not so much so.:smallwink:

Seriously though, I do tend to incorporate some comic relief into most of my characters. I do plan to make them at least effective in combat and other areas but I do like to have some zany quirk in most of my characters...like a half-orc cleric of Yondalla that everyone thinks is the halfling avatar because of his height.:smallbiggrin:

starwoof
2011-08-15, 06:01 PM
I'm the same way, Starwoof. Though my love of party facing means Cha's usually my #1/#2 stat.

I don't like prepared casters. They turn me into a walking definition for 'indecision paralysis.' :smallfrown:

I also like being the party face, my characters just tend to be bad at it.:smallbiggrin:


The only prepared casters I play are clerics, because I can spontaneously cast domain spells.:smallbiggrin:

Velaryon
2011-08-15, 06:10 PM
I don't like having scores below 10 either, and I definitely won't have any scores go below 8. I tend to like higher-powered (stat-wise, not necessarily optimization-wise) characters. Basically, the Heroic Array (18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8) is seen by me as sort of a minimum requirement, though stat points might be moved around from that array on a 1-for-1 exchange. A 16,16,14,12,10,10 character is appealing, for example. I've never understood how the "elite" array could possibly be considered powerful enough to be fun... when creating NPCs, I generally work off the Heroic Array except for mooks, who get the Elite Array plus a few points. Only out-of-the-book monsters get to keep their lackluster base stats.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who likes to play with good stats. Actually, one thing I've recently realized about myself is that I'm actually not happy with anything less than an 18 to start with in my most important ability score (before racial adjustments, ability increases, magic items, etc.). I discovered this when I was rolling up a Star Wars character the other day, I rolled two 17's, and my initial reaction was disappointment. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but I really hate to roll stats and not get an 18.

As for the characters themselves, I almost always like to have a decent Intelligence stat, even if it doesn't provide much of a mechanical bonus to me. Many of my favorite characters in books, movies, or TV are the clever, witty ones who can out-think their opponent and prevail despite not being the strongest, fastest, whatever. I've made characters with low strength, dexterity, constitution, wisdom, or charisma before, but I can't think of the last time I made a character with less than a 14 intelligence.

SamBurke
2011-08-15, 06:14 PM
Good. I don't think I'd every really even play a neutral character, except as a fun roleplay challenge/break from normal. That's just me...

CHA. I don't know what it is, but I like talking to people... so I can't do it badly.

Front-runner character. I love to play characters at the front of the party (possibly because they've got the Charisma..), a real PC PC.

Tengu_temp
2011-08-15, 07:46 PM
Yes, they represent your character, but they can also restrict your creativity if you limit yourself to roleplaying certain types based on what statistics you have. I understand why someone would want them to match, but I couldn't stand holding in a witty remark just because my character wouldn't be bright enough to say it.

If you don't let anything limit your roleplaying, then you just do whatever you want without paying attention to your character's abilities or personality - and that's not a good thing. It doesn't take that much hassle to invest in at least average mental scores if you want your character to show some ingenuity.

Cerlis
2011-08-16, 03:31 PM
For some odd reason I refuse/hate to play bards. Other than that...

(I guess I dislike the fact that music can = magic)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0128.html

you reminded me of panel 8

-----------------


I generally play a character who has some aspect of me. this usually means either they represent traits about myself i like (wit, creativeness, kindness) or aspects about people i admire (and would wish to be if i where physically or mentally different. I.E. If i where a girl, i'd want to be like this female character)

with that said, i suppose i'd never play a character who was a jerk, or selfish. any who would rub other characters the wrong way would be because they are not charismatic, have mental issues, have chosen an evil path to their goals.

This is a bad example since its OOC, rather than IC. but i had a problem with a friend of mine who refused to play elves and ALWAYS no matter what character made his character hate elves. Not only did he refuse to give an answer (other than "i just hate elves", which might as well be saying "Because") but we always had a problem making a party that would get along, and if someone wanted to play an elf they had to deal with the fact that one of our party would always hate them and never help them. this was particularly distressing when i wanted to play a half elf cleric. I wanted to go for the asthetic of a half elf. Not entirely human, tied a bit to the magical, but not totally ingrained into the wild or magic side of the world like elves are. A half elf seemed perfect and i think i even still have a mental picture of that character in my head. One day i did manage to get more out of him. he said something that got me to believe its how Superior, haughty and Feminine Elves are portrayed in some mediums. but when i pushed further he upended the conversation and that was that.

Knaight
2011-08-16, 04:05 PM
I don't have any system neutral things I insist on with characters that aren't covered by general game theme restrictions. Those general game theme restrictions usually cover stuff I just don't want to deal with in a game, such as real world racism, certain kinds of violence, so on and so forth.

Elyssian
2011-08-16, 04:23 PM
I guess the only Character type i seem to never play would be Mage I don't like sitting back and waving my hands around, I've duel classed once and never really enjoyed the game play. When it comes to stats I could really care less, one of my favorite characters ever had a 3 charisma and was evil to the core (go necromancer orc). But I think I've played with a terrible dump stat just because it was fun to work around it. I mean try getting a good deal on an item with a 3 charisma or convince the party mage to go along with the fighters plan who is barely smart enough to put his armor on. I like a challenge:smallbiggrin:

Darthteej
2011-08-16, 04:30 PM
I can pretty much play whatever, but it can't have any "good" in it's alignment descriptor (DnD, and any other game with an alignment-type mechanic). I just can't be the good guy. I hate it.

Seconded. I can never bring myself to list my alignment as anything above neutral. This applies even if, when their actions are viewed objectively, are almost entirely good.

On a related note, the only situation where I'll play alignments at their extreme is when I'm playing a Paladin or Blackguard. Lawful means generally respects authority, chaotic means you don't think about laws or spend time in lawless places, and evil means selfish and callous.

And no high-charisma characters. Like most players I'm not very charismatic IRL, but unlike most players I don't pretend I am. Any attempts to play high charisma by me end up awkward and forced, and any sorcerers I play won't have ranks in diplomacy.

Silva Stormrage
2011-08-16, 07:34 PM
I could never play a religious character. Not getting into it since its not allowed on these boards but I have just had some bad experience with religion and can't seem to get myself to play a character that follows a god.

YouLostMe
2011-08-16, 07:55 PM
I enjoy throwing in a little racism to my character--roleplaying tension is so much fun!

I also have yet to make a 3.5 character whose name doesn't start with the letter A.

Blisstake
2011-08-16, 08:06 PM
If you don't let anything limit your roleplaying, then you just do whatever you want without paying attention to your character's abilities or personality - and that's not a good thing. It doesn't take that much hassle to invest in at least average mental scores if you want your character to show some ingenuity.

Spoilered for going off topic

There are still plenty of things that limit my roleplaying. For example, I'm not going to roleplay a brilliant spellcaster if I pick "fighter" as my class. I'm not going to randomly slaughter civilians on the street if I choose "Lawful Good" as my alignment. Attributes, on the other hand, are something I really don't think should be restricting my roleplay options. For many characters, (and especially at low point buys), wanting to roleplay in a certain style with certain classes can be extremely detrimental to your character.

I don't think all casters should be intelligent, all sorcerers to be charming, or all rangers to be dumb as dirt. When you have to take a mechanical hit for role playing something out of the box, I think that's doing your gaming group a disservice, and making people less likely to roleplay outside of certain character archetypes. I have nothing wrong with using your mental stats as a guide for character personality, but when someone isn't allowed to play a charismatic fighter without a statistical penalty, I get a bit annoyed.

Also, why is it necesarily a bad thing to have limits to what you roleplay?

If anyone would like to continue arguing this, perhaps it should go to PM?

SowZ
2011-08-16, 09:03 PM
I can't play an evil character. To play a character well, I must like them, and there are very, very few evil characters in fiction or anywhere I like. And most of those I like as characters but admit are awful people.

I used to be in the "can't play a dumb character" camp, but they're not really that hard to play and can be quite enjoyable when played as loud, hammy and/or funny morons.



I disagree with this approach. Stats represent your character, someone with low intelligence doesn't have to be a drooling moron, but he is dim and not a fast thinker and should be roleplayed as such.

I could play an evil character in the vein of Marv from Sin City or William Munny from Sin City. People that admittedly kill because they enjoy it and cannot survive for long without intentionally hurting others but still has depth, loyalty, invested relationships, and even a moral code, (as loose as it may be,) where some lines can't be crossed.

As far as the stats, a low Int character may be fairly intelligent but just not 'book smart.' Of course, they would need another mental stat pretty decent to show what type of intelligence they are employing...

Because of this, I can play any alignment, any class, etc. but I've never played a Dwarf... Elves, Drow, Gnomes, Humans, Halflings, Planetouched, Incorporeals, Orcs... Most on multiple occasions. But never a Dwarf. No matter who is DMing, dwarves always seem to screw me over. I have developed an instinct where my characters have an ingrained, (maybe even unintentional,) prejudice against those short buggers.

Raimun
2011-08-16, 10:12 PM
The character has to be competent. As most games involve challenges of some sort, it feels good to be a part of the solution.

I've never played a woman. I wouldn't really have anything against playing one, if I had to but I prefer to be a man. Perhaps it's just that some (male) players can be a bit creepy with female characters and I don't want to take any risk that I'd be associated with them. :smalltongue:

I would refuse to play both Stupid Evil ("Kill everyone and their puppies!") or Stupid Good characters ("But we have to sacrifice ourselves to save the life of our mortal nemesis!"). On second thought, I'd exclude Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid too.

I like playing humanoid characters. It's just more natural than being a tentacled, insectoid creature with feathered wings, two heads, three arms and asymmetric body. ("But look at the stats!")

I'd never play a florist.

Knaight
2011-08-17, 02:30 AM
I would refuse to play both Stupid Evil ("Kill everyone and their puppies!") or Stupid Good characters ("But we have to sacrifice ourselves to save the life of our mortal nemesis!"). On second thought, I'd exclude Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid too.

Oh yeah, this. I insist that any characters I play are actually characters, not overt caricatures with nothing more to them.

Ertwin
2011-08-17, 05:08 AM
You likely won't catch me playing an elf.

With only one exception that I can think of, if I can play a non human, I will.

Coidzor
2011-08-17, 05:14 AM
In 3.X, I won't go with a set of stats that doesn't have at least a 16 for the highest stat, and I won't go with any stats lower than a 6 at all, and typically will try to avoid having several 8s.

Mostly because, since my group doesn't do Point buy, I have to roll, and my dice typically hate me 4 sets out of 5.

Mono Vertigo
2011-08-17, 06:07 AM
I tend to avoid classes that require careful preparation (hello-ooo, several spellcasting classes in D&D!), because I simply stop enjoying it after the first time. I have enough careful planning to do IRL not to want to roleplay that, too. :smallconfused:
Personality-wise, I'm also uncomfortable playing outright racist characters. I'm fine with generally harmless and silly discrimination, ranging from gnome-throwing contests to a dwarf healing the elf last because he's an elf, and he'd better be happy he's not punching him instead... but serious characters who honestly believe X sentient race should die just because they exist, or go out on their way to actively hurt them? Huh, nah. :smalleek:

bokodasu
2011-08-17, 07:45 AM
I used to have a lot of things I had to have/not have, but then I decided to try changing it up a bit, and I've played variations on almost everything I used to say I'd never do. I still probably wouldn't play a chaotic evil character, because I never have found a version of that I'd think was fun, and I wouldn't play a paladin or a monk in 3.5 just because of mechanics. But really - stupid, weak, smart, strong, 8/9 alignments, (almost) any class/race combo - it's all good, as long as it's interesting.

Well, except if I'm with a group I don't know. Then I always play male characters, and never rogues or clerics, but that's more of a social issue than a gaming one.

SowZ
2011-08-17, 09:34 AM
Wait, no, I did play a dwarf once. For like, an hour.

Darthteej
2011-08-19, 02:36 AM
Personality-wise, I'm also uncomfortable playing outright racist characters. I'm fine with generally harmless and silly discrimination, ranging from gnome-throwing contests to a dwarf healing the elf last because he's an elf, and he'd better be happy he's not punching him instead... but serious characters who honestly believe X sentient race should die just because they exist, or go out on their way to actively hurt them? Huh, nah. :smalleek:

What, you mean like EVERY D&D CHARACTER EVER?

Unless you're throwing pies at kobolds, goblins, and orcs, you're going a lot farther than "silly and harmless discrimination".

Knaight
2011-08-19, 02:41 AM
What, you mean like EVERY D&D CHARACTER EVER?

Unless you're throwing pies at kobolds, goblins, and orcs, you're going a lot farther than "silly and harmless discrimination".

Hey, I just noticed something! This thread isn't in the D&D subsection. Imagine that, games that aren't D&D. Rumor has it, some of them aren't even combat centric.

Rumor also has it that there are D&D games which don't include non human races, but that's just crazy talk.

Werekat
2011-08-19, 03:18 AM
I generally play spellcasters, but not nearly always. My characters will nearly always start out self-sufficient (or quickly become that).
I enjoy playing with at least one stat out of the ordinary.
I don't play stupid evil or stupid good. I don't actually play evil often - my characters are at most self-serving, and this can make them seem either very good or very evil, depending on environment.

flumphy
2011-08-19, 03:40 AM
Mechanically, I will not play anything that relies too heavily on resource management. I don't know why (maybe it's because I grew up in literal poverty) but I just can't manage to find resource management fun. I'm especially opposed to it when that resource is health. I refuse to play anything that trades health for mana, or something similar.

As far as roleplaying goes, I'm actually very open. Race, sex, orientation...I've probably done it all at some point. I've played moral codes all over the map. I guess my one requirement is that they be three-dimenional characters that behave in a moderately-believable way. I also try to play something typical for the setting (e.g., mostly PHB races in D&D) since I find it more immersive to play a character that's very much part of the society than an outsider in it. Unless it's a farcical one-shot, in which case bring on the cliches and surrealism.

Mono Vertigo
2011-08-19, 05:40 AM
What, you mean like EVERY D&D CHARACTER EVER?

Unless you're throwing pies at kobolds, goblins, and orcs, you're going a lot farther than "silly and harmless discrimination".

My mistake, I forgot gnomes were not the sole acceptable target in D&D, y'know, not having played it. :smallbiggrin:
I have less of an issue there with kobolds, goblins and orcs being acceptable targets (because, let's be fair, most of the time, they do attack you first), and more with "look, they're Always Evil because the Powers That Be say so, so don't even bother and kill them on sight, don't worry about your alignment, it's okay". :smallconfused:

hamishspence
2011-08-19, 07:52 AM
I have less of an issue there with kobolds, goblins and orcs being acceptable targets (because, let's be fair, most of the time, they do attack you first), and more with "look, they're Always Evil because the Powers That Be say so, so don't even bother and kill them on sight, don't worry about your alignment, it's okay". :smallconfused:

BoED's writers tended to agree- which is why they put in text implying it's evil behaviour to just attack such beings on sight.

They also put in less sensible things- but leave that behind.

BadJuJu
2011-08-19, 10:01 AM
LoW charisma is rough, since I am a very outspoken bull****ter. Many o times do I bluff my DM with a negative 4 bluff mod.

Esprit15
2011-08-19, 11:43 PM
I can't be stupid, I can't be über religious (palidins, clerics, etc.) and I can't be a straight melee fighter, but other than that I can do anything pretty much.

Mastikator
2011-08-20, 06:35 AM
I can't play deeply spiritual or pure of heart kind of characters. Mostly because I don't understand it and wouldn't be able to roleplay even if I wanted.
I also won't play characters that have stats purely for mechanical means, all stats and skills must make sense from a roleplay perspective otherwise it breaks immersion and the game loses its point.
I can't be bards or storytellers, I don't mind my characters telling stories or jokes, but doing only that? Not gonna happen.

Yora
2011-08-20, 09:31 AM
Über-Religious characters are fun. Especially when their believes are slightly wacky. Some of my favorite characters have been templars and cultists, though it works probably best if the rest on the party is also on the same boat.

Esprit15
2011-08-20, 10:46 AM
Über-Religious characters are fun. Especially when their believes are slightly wacky. Some of my favorite characters have been templars and cultists, though it works probably best if the rest on the party is also on the same boat.

True. Okay then, revised: I can't play any über religious character seriously.

DeadManSleeping
2011-08-20, 11:58 AM
My characters always need to have capabilities in a few areas. I can't do one-trick ponies.

Trinoya
2011-08-20, 12:25 PM
I almost never play a character without evasion. Also I try to always give my characters Heterochromia Iridum, because.... because awesome.


That said: I do a lot of multiclassing, it's driven my DMs up the wall before. I really like taking low levels of monk, or sneaking my way into Lyrist rather than Theurge. I don't think I've played a straight single class character in a very very long time... nearly everything has, at the very least, a two level dip into something else. I just don't believe in the, "I'm devoted to one thing and one thing only and my tastes could never change" concept, although I do believe multiclassing should have a restriction based on time passing in game...

Bovine Colonel
2011-08-20, 12:32 PM
I can never successfully pull off a non-LG character, and I've tried.

Also, I only ever really play humans or characters that act like and pass for humans.

Erik von Nein
2011-08-21, 02:34 AM
About the only thing I really like having is unarmed strike and lots of attacks. Why? Because Scott Pilgrim. Heh.

Kiero
2011-08-21, 03:21 PM
I play combat-ready generalists who rely on mundane skills. That's my preferred archetype. I play only humans, if the setting doesn't have any, then it isn't one I want to play.

I won't play anyone who is based on magic (with an exception for Jedi - even then I play martial artist Jedi, not Force-wizard Jedi) or a non-combatant. The archetypal D&D wizard is my anathema, nothing about them is fun for me. Both thematically, and because like others I hate resource management (and shopping lists).

Invariably my characters have families that mean something to them and their motivations. I won't play some unconnected, orphaned loner with no one they care about.

sdream
2011-08-22, 08:05 AM
I like my characters to have unusual mobility.

Vampires that can meld with shadows

Werewolves that can activate fetishes of extreme acrobatics and leap off buildings safely

Dexterity based characters who are great at climbing and sneaking

Warlocks with short range dimension door at will

Spirits that can float through walls and re-appear at their sacred sites

Jerthanis
2011-08-23, 03:36 AM
I won't play a character for whom sex is an important motivating factor. It's just uncomfortable and embarrassing.

I won't play a character who has a severe intolerance for another group of people for no reason.

I won't play a character who conforms to my conception of "evil" without understanding the conceptions the character uses to justify his behavior.

I won't play (or allow a player in a game I run) to play a Mute character, simply for the reason that speech is the tool we use to interact with the game world, so it's much more jarring to break up speech with pantomime and even worse to describe aloud the gestures you make trying to convey meaning.

I can't think of anything else in particular I won't do ever or will do every time.

prufock
2011-08-23, 06:36 AM
Repeat after me: always, always buy Sovereign Glue.

Beyond that, I'll play any character type.

DiBastet
2011-08-23, 12:59 PM
I would play most kind of characters, since I DM and all. I usually have some favorite choices and things I like, but not many things I would not do.

Many people here said they wouldn't play a dwarf, elf, non-caster, sex-motivated, racist or sexist char, and I've played chars with all these characteristics (the male elf was mildly bisexual (didn't really like any side too much), and had a SERIOUS prejudice with any kind of "completly hetero" or "so homo"). I've played sexist chars who believed females should only be the wizards and priests of his homeland, never warriors; racist chars who would humiliate weak members of his hated group; sex-crazed characters that spent some of the wealth on scrolls of Hypnotism so they could make a suggestion of "suck my @#$%" to a person and that person will always be considered Helpful for that suggestion; etc etc.

However, the things I would never play are the classical "wrong" archetypes: Lawful Stupid character that is a mockery of what Paladin should stand for; chaotic jerk characters that "do whatever I want"; Dumb Evil chars who are evil just as an excuse to be jerks; the Kender who just steals from the party; or the stupid ninja who knows secrets but let the party suffer without telling them the secrets; funny barbarians; bears that ride bears and summon bears; and I will never, ever, play Vegeta-like chars: The guy who stays in the corner, is a little jerk but in the end has a nice heart (almost) and (when really needed and cool) helps the party.

Silus
2011-08-23, 03:43 PM
I can't bring myself to play a character that is either sexually or romantically active. It's just...weird.

And I can't play a character that isn't at least a little bit of a team player. I couldn't bring myself to have my character sneak off during combat unless it was for a very good reason.

ghost_warlock
2011-08-24, 02:01 AM
I won't play a character for whom sex is an important motivating factor. It's just uncomfortable and embarrassing.

I won't play a character who has a severe intolerance for another group of people for no reason.

I won't play a character who conforms to my conception of "evil" without understanding the conceptions the character uses to justify his behavior.

I won't play (or allow a player in a game I run) to play a Mute character, simply for the reason that speech is the tool we use to interact with the game world, so it's much more jarring to break up speech with pantomime and even worse to describe aloud the gestures you make trying to convey meaning.

One of my favorite characters I've ever played fell into all of those categories. Yes, even mute. :smalltongue: Severely toned-down version I created for Champions Online. (http://www.primusdatabase.com/index.php?title=Meatseeker)

Temet Nosce
2011-08-24, 02:16 AM
It took a good bit of thought for me to come up with something I absolutely would not play (more generally speaking, all but one of my characters have had above average intelligence, and that one died during his first session, however I still did play such a character). I've also played characters that were deliberately designed to be morally revolting to me personally, or to inspire a sense of disgust in others. In pointed fact, I've gone out of my way to play a wide arc of character concepts to the extent of simply playing things because they'd be different.

So, what would I not play? A character that was incompetent at their own primary focus. I cannot abide characters who are horrible at things they're described as being good at. That said, this is something of a subset of a larger problem in that I detest inconsistency even in characters I'm not running. In pointed fact, I realized as I wrote this that I couldn't really bring myself to play any character which was made in a way where two aspects of the character disagreed with each other, to the extent that I've actually gotten irritated when other players even approached that area.

Knaight
2011-08-24, 03:44 AM
So, what would I not play? A character that was incompetent at their own primary focus. I cannot abide characters who are horrible at things they're described as being good at. That said, this is something of a subset of a larger problem in that I detest inconsistency even in characters I'm not running. In pointed fact, I realized as I wrote this that I couldn't really bring myself to play any character which was made in a way where two aspects of the character disagreed with each other, to the extent that I've actually gotten irritated when other players even approached that area.

You can't play hypocrites? They are so numerous, and a great thing to play occasionally just to add verisimilitude.

havocfett
2011-08-24, 04:11 AM
I basically don't play two concepts:

I don't play elves (Outside of Eberron, because Eberron is absolutely awesome) or hippy types, I'm rather fond of technology (As I'd have been dead by 5 without it) thank you very much.

I don't play subtle. If my character wants something, he asks for it. First politely, then social orders get overthrown, governments purged and continents set aflame.

Temet Nosce
2011-08-24, 04:25 AM
You can't play hypocrites? They are so numerous, and a great thing to play occasionally just to add verisimilitude.

That's... Exactly what I was trying to avoid saying, albeit the terminology makes it kind of look like that. No, I can (and given how hard it is to not play a hypocrite probably usually do) play hypocrites. However, I mark a difference between a character that isn't internally consistent on a metagame level (Dedicated swordsman who stinks at wielding swords, dumb as dirt uneducated hick who somehow conveniently turns into a genius when thought is required) and someone who doesn't actually act in accordance with their own supposed views.

Anarchy_Kanya
2011-08-24, 04:43 AM
All (well, most) of my characters are sexually active.
All (well, most) of my characters are Chaotic Stupid.
All (well, most) of my characters are sexy and at least above-average charismatic.
I think that I have some kind of ability fetish. I very much like when my characters have very good ability modifiers, all of them. Only when it's on purpose I am willing to take 8 in an ability (for example when I deliberately want to play an idiot or weakling or something).
My characters mostly are un-ordinary and stick out from the group.
I rarely play religious characters, but when I do, then they always worship some kind of lust/love/pleasure/sex god or goddess.

dsmiles
2011-08-24, 05:15 AM
So, what would I not play? A character that was incompetent at their own primary focus. I cannot abide characters who are horrible at things they're described as being good at. That said, this is something of a subset of a larger problem in that I detest inconsistency even in characters I'm not running. In pointed fact, I realized as I wrote this that I couldn't really bring myself to play any character which was made in a way where two aspects of the character disagreed with each other, to the extent that I've actually gotten irritated when other players even approached that area.


You can't play hypocrites? They are so numerous, and a great thing to play occasionally just to add verisimilitude.
No, I think he's saying he can't play fighters or monks. :smalltongue:

ghost_warlock
2011-08-24, 08:04 AM
Hm. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever played a character that was a coward. Some have definitely recognized the "better part of valor" when clearly outmatched, but none have been shy when it comes to combat. This goes as much for characters in d6, Alternity, GURPS, WoD, Savage Worlds, and other systems as it does for D&D.

DiBastet
2011-08-24, 10:28 AM
All (well, most) of my characters are sexually active.
All (well, most) of my characters are Chaotic Stupid.
All (well, most) of my characters are sexy and at least above-average charismatic.
I think that I have some kind of ability fetish. I very much like when my characters have very good ability modifiers, all of them. Only when it's on purpose I am willing to take 8 in an ability (for example when I deliberately want to play an idiot or weakling or something).
My characters mostly are un-ordinary and stick out from the group.
I rarely play religious characters, but when I do, then they always worship some kind of lust/love/pleasure/sex god or goddess.

Are you my girlfriend in disguise, having suddenly learned english without me knowing, registered in GitP and giving your opinion, while denying this same question that I'm typing and asking her face to face at the same time?

Because that's exactly how my girlfriend behaves.

-Almost all her characters are sexually (or at least romantically) active in some fashion: Ex-prostitute turned cleric, nymph rogue, character with a boyfriend npc, very free girls, etc.
-They MUST be sexy: She never, ever, plays the "ugly races" of the setting, and if one of the "almost ugly" races, like shifter, she's some kind of so much beautiful that you don't remember she's of an "almost ugly" race.
-She doesn't use the ability of her chars to be charismatic, however, less than 14 charisma (and we even have an appearance ability in our games) is unnaceptable.
-All good scores: Every character that she plays MUST have at least one 18. The stats she like should be 15+. Everything under 14, even on stats she doesn't care or in other chars is a "weak stats". Her characters can NEVER have ANYTHING below 10, only if playing a cute weak wizardling or something like that. This is the only exception.
-Her characters never blend with the group: If she's a rogue, she doesn't use leather armor, but skin tight later-like black armor. If everyone uses black and dark colors, then her rogue is like Altair and uses (skimpy) white clothes.
Edit: -I forgot this: Almost all her characters have Chaotic written on the sheet, because she "does'n like lawful characters", even writing Chaotic in the sheet of a seelie fey (highly lawful), being in love with the lawful codes of the sidhe, and playing a perfect sidhe (being very sidhe lawful). She just doesn't accept that she might be playing lawful: In her mind they are always chaotic. :smallconfused:

There's only one difference: Her characters are usually (at least somewhat) religious, but basically followers of the god of sun (hope, dawn, good and things that ressonate with her semi-catholic view) unless they are Divine characters. In that case they are followers of gods of lust, beauty, love, art, music or femility.

Oh, and big armored characters are a big no.

FatJose
2011-08-24, 11:08 AM
I can't play elves. I just can't. I find them interesting fluff-wise and I like playing them as NPC's but playing a specific character long term is grating for me. And drow are just the same problem magnified. I don't play halflings either but I like gnomes. Unfortunately, I hate the gnome's stats so that's also a no go.

I like playing racist characters. Getting into their head and making a believable character that isn't a B&W Hand wringing villain is a good challenge or even a good character who is ignorant and having them get over their prejudices. Honestly, I don't see how you can have a fantasy rpg without racism simply because of the very themes it usually has ingrained in it.

Usually, my characters are good natured and somewhat naive. And I favor light over medium and heavy armors. And two weapon fighting is totally cash. :smallcool:

Temet Nosce
2011-08-24, 02:35 PM
No, I think he's saying he can't play fighters or monks. :smalltongue:

Heh, to play those I just beat them over the head with splatbooks till they sit down, shut up, and do what I want.