Roleplaying well gets you killed.

[RumoCrytuf]

Rant thread!

What are some times that role playing a character concept well has gotten them killed?

Mine: I had a pyromancer named Scorch (Alias. He forgot his actual name). He was a wrecking ball of fire and death, except he was absolutely terrified of the dark. One day, he was wandering in a dungeon with a monk. And he got murdered by an imp. What happened? Said imp cast Darkness, which terrified poor Scorch. Roleplaying his apt fear of darkness, I had Scorch run blindly in a direction. He flipped over a table. Reciting a passage he read earlier that mentioned fire, the imp began to pound on him. I should note that Scorch only had 20 hitpoints, and the imp did ~11 damage per round. So, two rounds later, Scorch is unconscious and dying. The monk be damned, that imp was going for Scorch! So, one auto fail, then a natural one. Yes, I know it's in part because of the dice (which I'm never using again by the way.) But still. I played Scorch how he should have been played, and he died for it. To pour salt onto the wound, said Imp died next turn. :smallfurious:

Anywho, your turn!

EDIT: I should clear up, I'm not actually mad about this. He kind of had it coming. At a solid 29 damage per round at level 3... I kind of knew that the DM wasn't letting get away easy.

[Thrudd]

Only if you choose to role play a character with flaws likely to be extremely inconvenient to fatal for adventurers who often find themselves in deep underground caverns without light (aka all D&D characters). Role playing a character's flaws does not mean the DM is obliged to make sure things always turn out ok for you.
Nobody made you do that. Kudos for following through with your chosen characterization, but I don't think anyone would have blamed you or called you out as a "bad role player" for letting that character get over that particular fear, or have a slightly less extreme response to it. It just isn't practical in D&D.

[Cybren]

if your "flaw" isn't at least inconvenient to an adventurer it's not a flaw.

[Beelzebubba]

I don't think anyone would have blamed you or called you out as a "bad role player" for letting that character get over that particular fear, or have a slightly less extreme response to it. It just isn't practical in D&D.

Sure, but haven't you ever experienced an overly dramatic, played out, completely in character death before in a RPG?

You should try it. It's liberating.

Hell, Sean Bean's made a career of it.

[Unoriginal]

Sure, but haven't you ever experienced an overly dramatic, played out, completely in character death before in a RPG?

You should try it. It's liberating.

Hell, Sean Bean's made a career of it.

Yeah, Sean Bean's career as a Vampire: the Masquerade player was pretty great.

[Honest Tiefling]

if your "flaw" isn't at least inconvenient to an adventurer it's not a flaw.

You can role play a flaw that comes up, oh, say, every few sessions. Such as being really nervous around X type of people and very bad at dealing with them diplomatically. Assuming this is not an intrigue campaign, your character's flaw won't be present most of the time, but still noticeable when applicable.

If you pick a flaw that is a common tactic, present in both the wilderness AND in dungeons, you...Probably weren't going to live long. Heck, most cities wouldn't have any form of light either.

[Tanarii]

Role playing a flaw that is likely to eventually get an adventure killed well should get the adventurer killed eventually. IMO 'I go into a blind panic when I'm in darkness' should make the list of flaws likely to eventually get an adventurer killed. :smallamused:

Otoh ... it's not totally clear why this particular Imp decided that Scorch should be its personal punching bag.

[Cybren]

You can role play a flaw that comes up, oh, say, every few sessions. Such as being really nervous around X type of people and very bad at dealing with them diplomatically. Assuming this is not an intrigue campaign, your character's flaw won't be present most of the time, but still noticeable when applicable.

If you pick a flaw that is a common tactic, present in both the wilderness AND in dungeons, you...Probably weren't going to live long. Heck, most cities wouldn't have any form of light either.

I am simply responding to the accusation that they "chose a flaw inconvenient to an adventurer". If you're playing with flaws, either Flaws or just flaws, and it's not at least an inconvenience, you don't have a flaw.

[RickAllison]

My wizard's flaw of being overly trusting of every person he meets has never really made us suffer. Mainly because the other PCs point out that they shouldn't hand the artifact of ultimate power to a guy they met three seconds ago. Naturally, he also trusts the judgement of his friends.

They have also taken to going with him when he goes to shops to buy items. He has the most riches of the party, but he is very prone to scams.

[Shoreward]

"Too stubborn/stupid to give up or retreat" is a pretty classic flaw of novel, videogame, and anime protagonists which is one hundred percent likely to kill you or your entire party at some point. It reminds me of that old article the Giant did about the Samurai who ran headlong down a trapped corridor.

I do echo what Cybren said in part; if a flaw doesn't get in the way, it's not a flaw. I once saw a amateur writer list a flaw of their professor character as "isn't good at sports", and my first question was if sports were going to be in his character arc somewhere (they weren't) because otherwise it didn't matter.

That said, roleplaying isn't writing a novel. Your character traits and flaws can cause direct grief for other people if not carefully worked with, or they can get you killed in a logical place even though your character would make it out of that situation in a book. I'm not saying never have a flaw that could get your character killed, but I am suggesting that you be aware of it and consider the kind of game you're in. Especially if it could kill other people, too.

If you want a flaw that will (usually) not get you or your party killed but should still come up, do what Honest Tiefling said. Find something reasonably likely to occur every few sessions and pop it down there. It's a difficult balance, but an adventurer who does dumb things sometimes or is stubborn about a particular thing is different to one who will, say, throw up his or her arms and run screaming in the opposite direction the first time they run into a reanimated skeleton. Might work for a comedy game though.

Oh, and I generally avoid blanket phobias. The 5e manual at one point claims dwarves have "a fear of boats" because of that one character in dragonlance who had a fear of boats, disregarding the fact that he had a fear of drowning after someone close to him drowned in a boat accident when he was young, not a crippling, screaming fear of boats. Hell, he still nervously got into a boat when he had to, he was just terrified of sinking the entire time when normally he'd be a tough warrior dude.

No, I much prefer horrible personality flaws, like being a blunt jerk or a hopeless romantic.

[Vogonjeltz]

Rant thread!

What are some times that role playing a character concept well has gotten them killed?

Mine: I had a pyromancer named Scorch (Alias. He forgot his actual name). He was a wrecking ball of fire and death, except he was absolutely terrified of the dark. One day, he was wandering in a dungeon with a monk. And he got murdered by an imp. What happened? Said imp cast Darkness, which terrified poor Scorch. Roleplaying his apt fear of darkness, I had Scorch run blindly in a direction. He flipped over a table. Reciting a passage he read earlier that mentioned fire, the imp began to pound on him. I should note that Scorch only had 20 hitpoints, and the imp did ~11 damage per round. So, two rounds later, Scorch is unconscious and dying. The monk be damned, that imp was going for Scorch! So, one auto fail, then a natural one. Yes, I know it's in part because of the dice (which I'm never using again by the way.) But still. I played Scorch how he should have been played, and he died for it. To pour salt onto the wound, said Imp died next turn. :smallfurious:

Anywho, your turn!

Shouldn't he have run for the exit/the way he entered the room?

Random direction doesn't seem like an appropriate fear response at all.

[Hrugner]

I played a spineless rogue in advanced D&D who ran from conflict and stayed at max range as often as possible often running away from combat leaving the rest of the party, then stopping at a good distance and returning fire. He was the sort to throw down his weapons when attacked by an army of brigands asking for surrender, you know, reasonable. One day, the DM became so annoyed that he'd never harmed the character that he dropped an assassin on the character and one shot him. The moral of the story is don't play a character archetype that pisses off your DM.

[Unoriginal]

I am simply responding to the accusation that they "chose a flaw inconvenient to an adventurer". If you're playing with flaws, either Flaws or just flaws, and it's not at least an inconvenience, you don't have a flaw.

Could be a flaw that makes them unsuited for normal life outside adventuring. Like enjoying fighting too much, or being obsessive with accumulating ancient knowledge to the point no one want to deal with you usually.

A flaw has to be inconvenient, but it doesn't mean it has to be inconvenient for adventuring. Just saying.

[Cybren]

Could be a flaw that makes them unsuited for normal life outside adventuring. Like enjoying fighting too much, or being obsessive with accumulating ancient knowledge to the point no one want to deal with you usually.

A flaw has to be inconvenient, but it doesn't mean it has to be inconvenient for adventuring. Just saying.

In D&D a flaw has to be inconvenient to adventuring. Because adventuring is what the character is doing. In a tabletop RPG about figure skating, then flaws relating to fear of sequins would be relevant.

[Unoriginal]

In D&D a flaw has to be inconvenient to adventuring. Because adventuring is what the character is doing

They're not *only* doing adventuring.Being careful about always being armed can be a desirable trait on and adventure, but someone who absolutely refuses to be separated from his weapons might have troubles when the group try to have an audience with a ruler. Someone who likes to fight a lot might be useful in a dungeon, but can cause problems anytime they're bored so that a fight start, leading to bar brawls and various scuffles in the streets. Someone who is a daredevil and willing to take all risks can very well lose everything they have on a stupid bet, or involve the group in an irresponsable public stunt. Etc.

A flaw has to show up in a way or another, but it doesn't have to be during the PC's job. In a campaign I've been a player of, one of the PCs was willing to let the world burn to ashes if the group didn't go on a sidequest to save the woman he loved. Said sidequest involved fights and stealth missions of far greater magnitudes than the plot we were in, and had objectively more of an impact on the world than anything else we've done. So the character's flaw absolutely didn't hinder adventure, but pushed him to adventure more and grander.

[Laserlight]

Back around 1983, I was playing a paladin when the party ran into a beholder or something similar. Another party member, an elf, was bleeding out and my paladin was on his last hit point. The beholder's random attack was a magic missile at the elf--guaranteed to kill. I asked the DM "it's magic missile, so it'll auto-hit somebody, but can I throw myself in the way and take the hit myself?" "You know that'll kill you, right?" "Yeah, but I'm a paladin. It's not my problem, it's my god's problem." He agreed to allow it, so I used Lay on Hands to stabilize the elf, took the magic missile, and died. We weren't high enough level for Resurrection but the elf carried my body back to civilization, set up a shrine for me, and converted to my religion.

[Tanarii]

In D&D a flaw has to be inconvenient to adventuring. Because adventuring is what the character is doing. In a tabletop RPG about figure skating, then flaws relating to fear of sequins would be relevant.
No. It doesn't. The PHB has numberous Flaws that are not directly inconvenient to adventuring. A Flaw is "some vice, compulsion, fear, or weakness—in particular, anything that someone else could exploit to bring you to ruin or cause you to act against your best interests."

If you want to use a personal non-5e-canon definition of Flaw, go right ahead.

[Thrudd]

Sure, but haven't you ever experienced an overly dramatic, played out, completely in character death before in a RPG?

You should try it. It's liberating.

Hell, Sean Bean's made a career of it.

Absolutely, it's great. I wouldn't complain about it, is what I'm saying. If I were role playing a potentially deadly character flaw, and then my character died, how could I be surprised? If I didn't want that chance, I wouldn't have picked to role play that way.

A flaw isn't a flaw unless it's inconvenient - yes. But in D&D, nobody is forcing you take flaws, nor telling you specifically how to manifest them during role play. It's a game that is as much about tactics and resource management as it is about character acting. Be reasonable with your flaws and how you role play them, because your character's survival is in your hands, it's not on the DM to keep you alive.

[RumoCrytuf]

Shouldn't he have run for the exit/the way he entered the room?

Random direction doesn't seem like an appropriate fear response at all.

He also couldn't see, as he was in the middle of a darkness spell. (Also at a minor discretion of the DM)


No. It doesn't. The PHB has numberous Flaws that are not directly inconvenient to adventuring. A Flaw is "some vice, compulsion, fear, or weakness—in particular, anything that someone else could exploit to bring you to ruin or cause you to act against your best interests."

If you want to use a personal non-5e-canon definition of Flaw, go right ahead.

Hence, said NPC imp using darkness to bring poor Scorch to ruin.

[Cybren]

No. It doesn't. The PHB has numberous Flaws that are not directly inconvenient to adventuring. A Flaw is "some vice, compulsion, fear, or weakness—in particular, anything that someone else could exploit to bring you to ruin or cause you to act against your best interests."

If you want to use a personal non-5e-canon definition of Flaw, go right ahead.

Yes, I was using flaw in the context that the op was, not the context that the backgrounds section of the phb does.

[Draco4472]

Well, my favorite PC is an alcoholic. So he'll drink himself to death eventually unless his Clerical powers somehow give him a magic liver.

Other then that, I've played a wizard that almost got executed for casting magic to save others from a mugger in a city where arcane magic is illegal, a dwarf paladin who tried to kill every Drow they met (which didn't end well when a main NPC in a oneshot was one), a rogue/sorcerer who didn't run from a monster with a CR far above his paygrade because he thought he could save the people it was eating, A Half-orc fighter that insulted the leader of a tribe of barbaric orcs and a ghost,

If anything, I'd say never breaking character to avoid death makes one a great roleplayer, and though my DM's have been realistic in responses to the actions of my characters, they try to promote and reward roleplaying in such a manner, often giving the player a chance to make it out alive.

[J-H]

Back around 1983, I was playing a paladin when the party ran into a beholder or something similar. Another party member, an elf, was bleeding out and my paladin was on his last hit point. The beholder's random attack was a magic missile at the elf--guaranteed to kill. I asked the DM "it's magic missile, so it'll auto-hit somebody, but can I throw myself in the way and take the hit myself?" "You know that'll kill you, right?" "Yeah, but I'm a paladin. It's not my problem, it's my god's problem." He agreed to allow it, so I used Lay on Hands to stabilize the elf, took the magic missile, and died. We weren't high enough level for Resurrection but the elf carried my body back to civilization, set up a shrine for me, and converted to my religion.

Paladin, done properly.:smallcool:

[Arkhios]

The crippling fear of the dark might have been caused by the same traumatizing event which caused Scorch to forget his real name (such as a side-effect of madness). OP doesn't say if that event happened in-game or not, but it really doesn't matter.

In my honest opinion, well played.

[Tanarii]

Yes, I was using flaw in the context that the op was, not the context that the backgrounds section of the phb does.
Since he seems to used it in the context of 'crippling flaw that got his adventurer killed' I think he was using an even more stringent definition than you are. :smallbiggrin:

[Battlebooze]

So the Imp exclusively attacked your character after using an ability that your character had a psychological weakness against?

Nice RP on your part, though it sounds like your character was murdered by GM to me.

I think my next character would have the deadly flaw of "Afraid of being effective, lest the petty and cowardly gods strike him down."

:D

[McNinja]

Back around 1983, I was playing a paladin when the party ran into a beholder or something similar. Another party member, an elf, was bleeding out and my paladin was on his last hit point. The beholder's random attack was a magic missile at the elf--guaranteed to kill. I asked the DM "it's magic missile, so it'll auto-hit somebody, but can I throw myself in the way and take the hit myself?" "You know that'll kill you, right?" "Yeah, but I'm a paladin. It's not my problem, it's my god's problem." He agreed to allow it, so I used Lay on Hands to stabilize the elf, took the magic missile, and died. We weren't high enough level for Resurrection but the elf carried my body back to civilization, set up a shrine for me, and converted to my religion.
That's exactly how I would imagine any Paladin would like to go out.


Rant thread!

What are some times that role playing a character concept well has gotten them killed?

Mine: I had a pyromancer named Scorch (Alias. He forgot his actual name). He was a wrecking ball of fire and death, except he was absolutely terrified of the dark. One day, he was wandering in a dungeon with a monk. And he got murdered by an imp. What happened? Said imp cast Darkness, which terrified poor Scorch. Roleplaying his apt fear of darkness, I had Scorch run blindly in a direction. He flipped over a table. Reciting a passage he read earlier that mentioned fire, the imp began to pound on him. I should note that Scorch only had 20 hitpoints, and the imp did ~11 damage per round. So, two rounds later, Scorch is unconscious and dying. The monk be damned, that imp was going for Scorch! So, one auto fail, then a natural one. Yes, I know it's in part because of the dice (which I'm never using again by the way.) But still. I played Scorch how he should have been played, and he died for it. To pour salt onto the wound, said Imp died next turn. :smallfurious:

Anywho, your turn!

EDIT: I should clear up, I'm not actually mad about this. He kind of had it coming. At a solid 29 damage per round at level 3... I kind of knew that the DM wasn't letting get away easy.Whether you're mad or not, that's roleplaying that flaw correctly. It sucks, but then again a fear of the dark does suck. The only thing I would say is that as soon as Scorch was out of the darkness bubble, he should've been able to fight normally unless darkness was re-cast in him or moved with him. Fear of the dark is very binary; if it's dark, you're scared/afraid/terrified, but as soon as you're in the light the fear subsides. I used to be mildly afraid of the dark (but I was fine in a group), my brother was legit afraid of the dark, but got over it around high school.


That being said, someone who experienced a traumatic event in darkness would most certainly do everything in their power to have light around them at all times. Researching way to see in magical darkness, researching new light-emitting spells, etc.

[RumoCrytuf]

That's exactly how I would imagine any Paladin would like to go out.

Whether you're mad or not, that's roleplaying that flaw correctly. It sucks, but then again a fear of the dark does suck. The only thing I would say is that as soon as Scorch was out of the darkness bubble, he should've been able to fight normally unless darkness was re-cast in him or moved with him. Fear of the dark is very binary; if it's dark, you're scared/afraid/terrified, but as soon as you're in the light the fear subsides. I used to be mildly afraid of the dark (but I was fine in a group), my brother was legit afraid of the dark, but got over it around high school.


That being said, someone who experienced a traumatic event in darkness would most certainly do everything in their power to have light around them at all times. Researching way to see in magical darkness, researching new light-emitting spells, etc.

He never managed to get out of the Darkness. :| I was going to take a couple levels in Warlock for True Darkvision. But alas, twas not meant to be.

[Grod_The_Giant]

In D&D a flaw has to be inconvenient to adventuring. Because adventuring is what the character is doing. In a tabletop RPG about figure skating, then flaws relating to fear of sequins would be relevant.
A mechanical flaw, as in the 3.5 version, where you get a mechanical benefit for having said flaw? That should absolutely be relevant and actively inconvenient. But a role-playing flaw, affecting only your characterization, can be as prominent or subtle as you like. There's nothing saying that every character needs a crippling phobia or compulsion of some sort-- most people don't, much less those daring enough to go adventuring. And you can absolutely roleplay fear without devolving into "Someone said 'spider?' I flip out and cower under the table for the next hour!"

[Cybren]

not what i said

[Lynnalynna]

One of my favorite D&D memories was back from advanced where I created a halfling giant killer (a ranger kit) who's back story made it a point that he was fanatically devoted to a god of desease, poison, and plague.

Our groups Kender had pulled the first lever he had seen in the module which so happened to be poisoned. The DM rolled for damage and ended up killing the Kender in the first room of the campaign due to poison. Feeling bad, he had the gods bring him back from death as it was the first room.

Both the DM and I then said crap and he had me roll to see if I noticed. Well long story short, the Kender had a worshipper the rest of the campaign because a halfling thought he was the chosen champion of the god of poisons.....And he knew it.

Another one was in 3.5 I ran a Shogunja who was a pacifist and minor royalty. Because of my strict pacifistic codes, my DM allowed me to have a personal servant. Our DM at the time didn't believe in giving XP out of combat so when my character found ways to have us avoid or run from every unnecessary combat (with the support of the rest of the group) we got to the end of the campaign at lvl 1 and it was built to be challenging at 20. Our barbarian survived at least.

And a third is only kind of a flaw and led to my character eventually being a vizier at the end. They were a Nezumi Totemist (3.5 using incarnum) and they were OBSESSED with selling junk. My skills were stated out to optimize sales and collection of "antique oddities" and by that I mean strange gratings, stained glass shards, moldy tomes, molding from a derelict mansion, etc.

This obsession led to them making a fortune off of their first five lvls and they opened their shop fully. Well long story short, they eventually bought their position as vizier to stop an assassination attempt from the current vizier, which was their last adventure as they retired to their new position. So out of this one I'm saying that you have to be careful that a flaw doesn't become a benefit.

In my next campaign I'm in, my warlock will be mute. This is due to current IRL issues, so we will see how they will fare.

[Tanarii]

not what i said
Pretty close though. Your view of flaws is certainly justified when talking about something that provides a mechanical disadvantage in return for a mechanical benefit. For personality flaws driving roleplaying, not so much.

[Beelzebubba]

Yeah, Sean Bean's career as a Vampire: the Masquerade player was pretty great.

^^
Intelligence as a dump stat in real life. :smallsigh: