What to do when there are player/character discordance?

[ciopo]

Greetings giants!

I'd like some opinions on this scenario.

I, as the player, am enjoying myself greatly playing a character.

I do not want to stop playing that character.

But the character motivations don't align with the rest of the group anymore, it would make in-universe sense to retire him

what do?

I know I will probably just keep playing that character, but the dissonance breaks the willing suspension of disbelief, so to say.

[Quertus]

Play him in a game where his motivations match the goal?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Your character's motivations simply don't align anymore or they've actually come to be at cross purpose to the rest of the party?

In the former case, good allies are hard to find. Setting your own goals aside to help your allies with theirs for a time is perfectly reasonable. It'll also give them a reason to tag along and help with yours down the road.

In the latter, you need to retire the character unless your group is okay with PVP and you can keep it a secret until an opportune moment.

[Kurald Galain]

Consider some event or action that could affect or change your character's motivations and ask the GM if he can make that happen. You do have a measure of control over your character's motivations.

[ciopo]

to describe the situation as I see it so you have a bit more to go on, sorry about the lack of information earlier but it was a quick and dirty post while on coffee break :)

The character in question is a runaway/fugitive from a evil empire that persecute spellcasters, he is a spellcaster.

He joined a group of misfits in a escort mission, all young people, he has opened up about being a spellcaster since it would have been "out yourself or someone dies" otherwise, that has been many sessions ago and probably 3 or so months ago in universe.

We as a group have a bit of hero complex, being young people and feeling invincible etc, in a couple occasions now there have been very close brush with death, in the most recent two of these, the second latest time after reuninting with some of us that had been kidnapped I advocated to escort the frailest member (npc) to that dungeon entrance because she was without equip and frail, most of the party was contrary to that so she tagged along for the resto of the dungeon, which resulted in her almost dying to fireball ( she went to negative hp ).

most recent "reckless" behavior did result in another npc death, long story sort we were in a boss encounter, boss goes "phase two" trasforming in a huge creature, poke two of us that were within range ( me and another ) for about 1 third of our total HP, I happen to be next on initiative order so I called a "retreat and regroup", dropped a obscuring mist to facilitate disengaging and taking stock of the situation, then moved the **** away, luckily not eating also a Aoo.

But no one else moved away, with the end result being a npc death for good, we're level 6 so that's not easy to recover from now.

All that said, my character after the adrenaline of the combat/situation wears off will feel responsible for the death, because post-hoc rationalization are easy and "what if I stayed there" and so on, but at the same time he won't feel all that safe traveling/associating with this group of people anymore, because recklessness.

Now, this could be a good occasion to have character development/ bonding over the death of a common friend, or having some "maturing" happen to these characters to not feel as indestructible anymore, but given that character prior characterization I feel more likely / true to story that he would up and leave.

This might be a bit of "table/metagame" problem, in that we are operating with the assumption that the GM doesn't throw a impossible challenge to us, except I dont' assume as much? I will have a talk about this with the others before the next session anyway

[Batcathat]

All that said, my character after the adrenaline of the combat/situation wears off will feel responsible for the death, because post-hoc rationalization are easy and "what if I stayed there" and so on, but at the same time he won't feel all that safe traveling/associating with this group of people anymore, because recklessness.

Now, this could be a good occasion to have character development/ bonding over the death of a common friend, or having some "maturing" happen to these characters to not feel as indestructible anymore, but given that character prior characterization I feel more likely / true to story that he would up and leave.

Obviously it depends a lot on the character's established personality but couldn't you justify him staying specifically to try and get the group to be more responsible in the future?

[ExLibrisMortis]

You are playing a relatively careful character, who is the "voice of caution" in an otherwise reckless group. Your character was overruled when it came to certain life-or-death decisions, and the bad outcomes of these decisions have prompted reflection. Your character is evaluating whether they can, in good conscience, continue taking the risks that this group routinely takes.

Right so far?

First, that's some good RP right there.
Second, have you played this out with the group? If not, do so.

The group might become more sensitive to your character's moderating influence, just from you playing out their concerns.
Alternatively, the DM may provide some cause for your character to continue adventuring with this group, perhaps in the form of a Good Cause that justifies the great risks taken.
Alternatively alternatively, the DM may pick up on what you're going for (or you can let them know, in private) and make it clear to the group that your character is to be listened to (some of the time). For example, the DM might stage an encounter that is best solved by running the hell away, which your character recognizes. With a little help from the DM, the other players may be persuaded to have their characters retreat, establishing that your character is a sensible sort of person, who is not to be ignored when calling for a retreat, and providing your character with assurance that sometimes, their caution does save lives.


Which of these options is most viable depends on the tone--and players' expectations--of the game. For example, if the other players and the DM are going for a very "heroic" game (in which the heroes are winners almost by definition), then you may have difficuly persuading them to accept the third option. In that case, the second option would be more in line with the genre.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Oh that's an easy one. "These guys are nuts," is far from the only way that the character -could- take the outcome of that battle. Post-hoc rationalizing how "it's not my fault" is so par-for-the-course for hot-headed youngsters that's its virtually a trope and stretching that to "it's not our fault" with a close in-group is barely less common.

In any case, -you- decide how the character thinks. If you want to keep playing it, you just have to decide that he doesn't feel like striking out on his own is the right course.

Heck, you could just go with "safety in numbers" until you get back to civiization; a few days, I presume; then just go with the momentum of having been with this group for this long and simply don't screw up the courage to actually leave after all. Not exactly the most heroic line of thought but so believable it's almost to be expected.

[ciopo]

thanks everybody for the feedback, next session will indeed probably be a "talk" between the characters, I just hope I'm up to it because RPing isn't my forte at all.

As for the "it's not my fault" rationalization, I have thought of that, but it would be out of character, kinda.

I know that at the end of the day I will do whatever I, the player, feel like, but I value consistency

[Zarrgon]

All that said, my character after the adrenaline of the combat/situation wears off will feel responsible for the death, because post-hoc rationalization are easy and "what if I stayed there" and so on, but at the same time he won't feel all that safe traveling/associating with this group of people anymore, because recklessness.


Well....how about:

Your character does feel bad and responsible. And they have to come with the grip of : why am I a yellow belled coward? Why at the first sign of a tough fight did I run? Why was I so selfish and why did I only care about myself? Why did I not stay and fight it out with my companions?

Now the answer to all the above is not to leave, run away and hide: it is to be a better person! You want to be the companion that will die for others, not the coward that runs at the first sign of trouble.

You can also toss in "they are all you have got in the world".

[Nifft]

But no one else moved away, with the end result being a npc death for good, we're level 6 so that's not easy to recover from now.

All that said, my character after the adrenaline of the combat/situation wears off will feel responsible for the death, because post-hoc rationalization are easy and "what if I stayed there" and so on, but at the same time he won't feel all that safe traveling/associating with this group of people anymore, because recklessness.

Now, this could be a good occasion to have character development/ bonding over the death of a common friend, or having some "maturing" happen to these characters to not feel as indestructible anymore, but given that character prior characterization I feel more likely / true to story that he would up and leave.

Sounds like your character has some survivor guilt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt), and that's a trait you could play out until you resolve it.

Or you could retire and make a new character, picking this one up again for another future game.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, this doesn't really sound like a problem to me. Just don't leave. It's not that complicated. Most people aren't super eager to abandon their closest friends and their quest at the same time.

As a DM, I really dislike it when players get it into their heads that their character has to do something that contradicts the basic premise of the game because it's what they would do! You decide what the character would do. As the player, part of your job is to find a reason for them to do the thing that allows everyone to keep playing D&D. I mean, it's not even hard. Like 99% of the time, the answer is either a. friendship, b. saving the world, c. loot, or d. some combination of the above. And if you feel like your character can't participate without character development, well, character development is awesome, so there you are.

[Icewraith]

One time my Rogue peaced out of a losing fight, and there hadn’t been a whole lot of intra-party bonding yet, so there didn’t seem to be a whole lot of good reasons for him to go back and rescue the party. So I said something like this:

“Ok, so in 99 out of 100 possible universes, my character does the ‘smart’ thing and goes to get some healing, abandoning the party to its fate and ending the campaign. Which sucks.

So let’s focus on the one universe where he decides to go back and rescue everyone, and see what happens.”

The DM was down, I got to do some cool Rogue stuff (5e Thief rogue is spectacular), I rescued everyone else’s characters, disaster averted, campaign continued.

Acknowledge the boring, sensible option, then explore the more exciting one that keeps the party and campaign together anyways!

[Max Caysey]

Greetings giants!

I'd like some opinions on this scenario.

I, as the player, am enjoying myself greatly playing a character.

I do not want to stop playing that character.

But the character motivations don't align with the rest of the group anymore, it would make in-universe sense to retire him

what do?

I know I will probably just keep playing that character, but the dissonance breaks the willing suspension of disbelief, so to say.


Since you are the designer, change his motivations... or remember that sometimes in life you cant always do what motivates you. People have jobs they hate, but get past it non the less. Therefore you character sticks with it, because you say so and you keep playing and having fun. Remember that you the player are playing a game, the character is not real!

[Gnaeus]

Sounds like your character has some survivor guilt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivor_guilt), and that's a trait you could play out until you resolve it.

Or you could retire and make a new character, picking this one up again for another future game.

Or ask the DM to play a temporary character. Your character leaves on a spirit quest and returns a few levels/months from now with a dramatic reveal and maybe a plot hook.