Are there things you insist on in your characters?

[Jubal_Barca]

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]

For some odd reason I refuse/hate to play bards. Other than that...

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

[Siosilvar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I never leave home without my spiked gauntlets.

[Jubal_Barca]

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.

[navar100]

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]

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]

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]

I've only roleplayed one female. And she was a dwarf.

[Pigkappa]

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]

I never play Evil characters. Ever.

[Antonok]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Dienekes]

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]

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.