What if it IS what my character would do?

[OldTrees1]

The phrase, "X's depiction of Batman was not true to the original" cannot be parsed as a meaningful statement unless characters do/can have such a life of their own.

I, of course, was trained in a school of thought that took the exact opposite stance from the one you describe. A school of thought that held that role-playing was the highest good, and the interests of the players had no grounds to justify overruling their characterization.

My personal opinion? If you sacrifice *either*, you've already lost. If the only way forward that matches the interests of the players is to depict Vader¹ as a snuggly kitten lover, who funds charities and gives stickers to children, then you should stop moving forward.

¹ real Vader, not spoof Vader, not a dream, not an alternate reality, not…

There is a space between when a character has a consistent characterization and when the author loses the power to change the characterization. I used Batman as an imperfect example of a character who exists beyond the control of a single author (partially because the cultural image makes it resilient to changes) but Dun is a character that still remains under the control of a single author. Although this is a continuum.

In that space something is lost if the players' interests come in conflict with the character acting in character. However I would argue the players' interest come first. And I think your school of thought would agree, although I will need to elaborate.

The school of thought you were trained in has one of the foundational player interests be consistent characterization. So when a character's characterization comes in conflict with other player interests, it is also coming into conflict with this foundational player interest your school of thought has. I don't conclude the character must change. I conclude you should address the conflict of player interests.

From there, the rest of your post seems like one of multiple valid outcomes of addressing that conflict of player interests.

Personally I too highly value character consistency as one of my values, this is why my consistent answer through this thread was "ignore the excuse that hides the player's interests, talk about the harder topic OOC" rather than a concrete always X or always Y.

Well, if you would actually quote all of what I said.

"It is always a player's fault if they chose to disrupt a game and spoil the fun for the rest of the table."

Then yes.

If a player chooses to disrupt a game then it is on them.

Don't quote half of a sentence and then try to argue against that misleading quote, please.

Sometimes multiple players contribute to the same conflict. The DM and the player controlling the PC can both bear some responsibility.

As always I suggest dealing with conflicts of player interests OOC.