Why The Zealot?

[glitterbaby]

In pretty much every game I've played there has been at least one character that is absolutely extreme. The righteous warrior priest, the tyrannical ruler, the bloodthirsty murderer, etc, all show up at least once in every game. Why is this so common? Why do we like the extremes as much as we do?

[Florian]

In pretty much every game I've played there has been at least one character that is absolutely extreme. The righteous warrior priest, the tyrannical ruler, the bloodthirsty murderer, etc, all show up at least once in every game. Why is this so common? Why do we like the extremes as much as we do?

Because it can actually be relaxing to paint the world in black and white, forget all about the grey areas and feel good at whacking deserving targets?

[ComaVision]

I love those characters. Every story with them also has the pivotal moment when a very close relation conflicts with their code and they have to decide between the two. I guess I love the drama? I'm a big fan of WWII history too since it's such a giant clash of ideologies.

EDIT:
Florian also nailed it ^

[Edgar Snow]

I'm guilty of the super intellectual librarian alchemist wizard, but my personal favorite is the wrath-of-nature Druid. Bear with a bear summoning bears stuff.

I had a slight issue with my DM once when another character (their partner) wanted me to calm down on of the horses pulling the evil group's new slaves. I said my character would give the horse freedom... But the other character wanted it as a pet.

I quickly gave in so the game would continue.

[JBarca]

Probably the same reason we don't play commoners with ranks in Profession: Baker, if to a different scale. Because RPGs are escapist games, really. Real people are grey areas. Real people don't tend to fall on one of the major extremes. So here's the chance to do that and get away with it. Zealots in real life are viewed as odd. Zealots in DnD? Why the heck not?

Also, because it makes for a better game. The middle-of-the-road, "nothing bothers me," go-with-the-flow type people are probably less likely to be adventurers. No adventurers, no story (typically).

[DrMotives]

I've rarely had zealot characters in my groups, but I've seen the opposite. Someone asked a paladin if he was religious, his answer? Vaguely, yes. So after that Vaguely Yes became a deity in that DMs homebrew campaign.

[ekarney]

The above reasons, but also, it's very easy to roleplay extremes, and it's very easy to focus solely on one character trait., it's not optimal roleplaying but I both allow it and do it, why? Because it's easy. I'm sure we're all guilty of it, having to make split second decisions about a fictional character we know very little about is damn difficult,

[Willie the Duck]

It's also very easy to play--pick a direction and GO! How fast? As fast as you can. What about the consequences? This guy doesn't care about consequences.

And when it all flies off the rails, it's often a lovely-to-watch train wreck.

[Honest Tiefling]

The above reasons, but also, it's very easy to roleplay extremes, and it's very easy to focus solely on one character trait., it's not optimal roleplaying but I both allow it and do it, why? Because it's easy. I'm sure we're all guilty of it, having to make split second decisions about a fictional character we know very little about is damn difficult,

Agreed. I play zealots. Why? They are easy, and with one goal in mind, it's easy to get over that rough patch in the beginning of the game where the player characters don't know each other and need a reason to fight with each other. Use them against my enemies, convert them, prove I'm better, etc. are all valid reasons to adventure with strangers.

It also explains why my PC hasn't **** their pants and gone home to hide under the covers after the first time they see an undead. Not everyone who thinks solving problems with sabotage, thievery, violence and murder is going to be on the likable side of things. Furthermore, they'll be unlikely to settle down after the first time they see a person's head explode, nor will they have emotional reasons to stay in the town as opposed to continuing the adventure.

[Blackhawk748]

Because punching zealots in the face is a relaxing past time, and they can be very easy to hate if they are villains. Also they make good allied NPC foils for the characters. The Characters are the down to Earth reasonable ones, and Bob the Zealot over there shows them what not to do

[Mr.Moron]

Because some folks are not looking for the RP in RPG so much as the G. They're there first and foremost for the G part, a small skirmish wargame with stat persistence and development. A one dimensional character with extreme views that always lead to combat get you the most fighting for the minimal amount of effort spent on RP. If you want to use a hammer pick a character concept that makes all your problems look like nails, pretty simple.

[AMFV]

In pretty much every game I've played there has been at least one character that is absolutely extreme. The righteous warrior priest, the tyrannical ruler, the bloodthirsty murderer, etc, all show up at least once in every game. Why is this so common? Why do we like the extremes as much as we do?

Well first off, those are all profoundly different extremes. I wouldn't say a tyrannical ruler is necessarily extreme, most rulers in history are tyrannical one way or the other. The Righteous Warrior Priest often shows up because D&D has actual Gods and therefore religion has to be addressed. The bloodthirsty murderer shows up because he's an easy target, you can fight him without any issues.

[Flickerdart]

The Zealot is an umbrella trope that covers a wide variety of character archetypes. It's a statistical certainty that you will find many of them in your games.

[Knaight]

In pretty much every game I've played there has been at least one character that is absolutely extreme. The righteous warrior priest, the tyrannical ruler, the bloodthirsty murderer, etc, all show up at least once in every game. Why is this so common? Why do we like the extremes as much as we do?

For one thing, you're talking pretty broadly here, and lumping a lot of archetypes together. For another, D&D is a game that focuses a lot on combat and violence, and the sort of people that are run into reflects this. So, you're likely to see a fair number of guards, soldiers, mercenaries, etc. This general class of people is mostly going to be people who are doing their jobs, but there's also going to be instigators. One of the big tropes of D&D is that things are often solved with violence, and this limits the instigators to some extent. Long running complex conflicts based in things like resource distribution, cultural differences, and other complexities don't lend themselves well to this. A bloodthirsty dictator who can be personally toppled and the regime falls with them? That works just fine. A bloodthirsty murderer (and probably serial killer)? That's another problem that can be solved by just killing the guy. An individual zealot pushing for holy war? Same deal, they're susceptible to just being killed.

Generally the desire for realism does push settings more towards complex sources of conflicts, organizations with a mix of people, etc. However, the pull for the zealot, tyrant, and serial killer is absolutely still there, and while it might not just be one of these people*, they're still going to be around.

*Though in the case of the whole BBEG trope, to some extent it is.

[Elder_Basilisk]

People tend to play extreme or outrageous characters because in practice, they are the kind of characters that people give them kudos for role-playing. Or at least they were the kind of character/players who consistently got voted the "role playing award" in all the RPGA tables I played (back when RPGA did that). It is what people reward.

Why? There are several reasons:

1. A bias for action

Role playing games are not literary novels. A character's internal monologue doesn't come out at the table because it is internal. On the other hand, bold, straightforward statements and actions stand out. A quiet character is always going to be harder to role-play because you don't get to _do_ anything. This even effects things that you would otherwise expect to be genre tropes. The gruff warrior who almost never speaks is a genre trope but it's going to take a long time before anyone notices that that's what you're role-playing and you're not just distracted by Clash of Clans during the talky bits of the game.


2. A bias towards easily recognized archetypes.
If people don't know what you're playing, they don't know you're playing it well and since extreme archetypical characters can generally be conveyed quickly, they are easier to pick up on.
It is much easier to communicate extreme and archetypical characters at the table than subtle, sophisticated, or nuanced characters. "Kill 'em all and let Kord sort 'em out" is punchy and to the point and communicates zealotry and bloodthirst in a way that is readily identifiable and that doesn't hog the table's attention. On the other hand, even if the table has the patience for a character setting up a tribunals, using detect evil, detect chaos, zone of truth, and detect lies to figure out which of the pirates were really guilty and which were pressed into service, doing so doesn't fit as readily into archetypes--especially if the rest of your play is not consistent with the "Lawful Stupid" archetype.

3. A bias towards characters that fit with the actions of the game.
If most games are about designated heroes (they're the heroes because they're PCs, not because they're necessarily heroic) kicking in doors, killing things, and looting their corpses, then your character needs to be down with doing that. The zealous warrior-priest can have good reasons to do it. The psychotic murderhobo doesn't need reasons to do it. Both character types fit the adventurer mold without too much trouble. Real life adventurers like the conquistadores, pirates, vikings, etc seem to have had more than their share of those archetypes too.

[Spore]

1. It is very easy to create an adventuring background.
If your character is the personified principle of his choosing, there is no difference between agenda and action. My Alchemist and my Summoner always had an explanation on why they are doing what they do. My mysterious oracle and paladin did what was best for their nation or the good people in general. The character depth doesn't have to come from the conviction of the character because there is enough potential for (social) interaction within a party of x players. That is also why many people prefer characters with little to no characters from their background.

2. It helps with quick paced games.
Your character doesn't dilly-dally. He doesn't try to talk to the slavers. He doesn't care about the poor origins of the bandit. "OF WITH THE HEAD." they scream. This stuff can get incredibly overwhelming and bore everyone around. They don't try to talk themselves through 4 hours of politics in order to free the pirate that in turn frees slaves from execution. No, they enter the prison, knock the guards out and free her.

3. It gives the DM a hook to grab on.
An assassin does want to kill people. A Paladin fights evil. The warlock wants souls for her archdevil patron. Plot hooks within extensive backstories are very fine but sometimes people just want a bit of action. Your paladin can still be the son of a trade prince that has to teach the old man how to trade fairly. Your rogue can still have a geisha sister in the hands of the BBEG. Your warlock can still be madly in love with a celestial being but his advances can be blocked because he is deeply corrupted.

Two of my favorite characters come from both ends of the spectrum. My Paladin is fanatically good. He would die for people he knew for 2 weeks. He tries to stop evil whereever he can. And he is too merciful for his own good. My Oracle however was a silent envoy of the nordic death and ice goddess sent to aid the group in their endeavors in order to atone for her crimes. She basically only spoke when spoken too. She silently did her job, reassured people about their path and tried to heal most people while giving those fatally wounded a dignified end. She promised her soul in order to summon a Valkyrie for the last evening of the campaign, and while impressive, she did this completely offscreen. All that while atoning for her dead lover's sins to help him get into Valhall.

[TheIronGolem]

Also, while the actual characters themselves are defined by being inflexible, the archetype is actually quite flexible. Zealots can be good guys. They can be bad guys. They can be allies you can't stand or enemies you can actually admire.

[Theodred theOld]

We've all been there. The players meet the NPC who you've planned some complex encounter or intrigue to feature. He's a complex and nuanced character with goals and aspirations. Perhaps his evil deeds are committed with good intentions or maybe his beliefs just don't quite line up with those of the players. In any case the results are usually similar. Inevitably the players will not react to the NPC how you think they should and that is why I use extremes with my NPCs. It's much easier to predict reaction when you give your players a clear signal. Make the bad guy reaaallly evil. Make the helpful mentor so kindly that their intentions are unmistakable. Then when your group has a feel for the tone change it up and watch them fall apart.