Judging people based on how they roleplay: fallacy or legitimate method?

[Kalmageddon]

I think it's a well known fact that discussing real life issues in relation to roleplaying games is a sure way to get your thread locked on this forum, which is understandable because said discussions tend to become very heated very fast.
The reason seems to be that there is a whole lot of people that can make pretty heavy accusations and judge the morals and beliefs of someone based almost exlusively on how they handle roleplaying.

Which I think raises an interesting point: how much can you really tell about a person and his moral values from the way they roleplay, either as a player or as a GM?

My personal opinion is that you can't really tell all that much. Roleplaying implies playing a role which more often then not tends to be something very different from what you are in real life. Not only that, but your preferences about what kind of situations you would like to roleplay isn't necessarely representative of how you'd like to live your life. You may like action oriented adventures, but it doesn't mean that you'd like to kill someone in real life. You may like to roleplay scumbags, but it doesn't mean you are one in real life.
Even as a GM the way you shape the world isn't representative of your values. I personally like dystopian settings a la Warhammer 40k, but I don't support the typical political and moral beliefs that are going to be common in those settings.

And yet it seems that according to some people, roleplaying should always accomodate the real life ideologies of everyone involved. Basically, it seems that if there is sexism in the setting, then it's your right to be offended by it even if it's not real sexism, being that it's not directed at a real person and it's not meant to convey a pro-sexist message, and call out your GM on that.
Or, if a player wants to roleplay a sexist character then he must be sexist as well, and if his character makes a sexist comment about my female character then I have every right to call him out on that.
(I'm only using sexism as an exemple, it could be anything, from racism to homophobia, etc...)
What confuses me even further is that no one ever calls the GM or a player a pro-murderer just because there is plenty of killing in the typical roleplaying game, even if arguably killing a fellow human being is the most horribile act you can possibly do, since it's the ultimate form of violation, taking away the possibility of living.

But at last this seems the mentality of at least some people I've seen around here.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have comfort zones when it comes to roleplaying. Everyone has preferences and it's obvious that one shouldn't be forced to roleplay a situation he or she isn't comfortable with, this isn't a discussion to talk about uncomfortable situations in games. What I'm talking about is passing judgment on a real person based on what happens in a roleplaying game.
This seems to be most frequent towards GMs, but I've seen players being victim of this too.

I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter.

[NichG]

Well I think any social interaction with a person can provide information to their real self, even if the interaction is them pretending to be a fictional character.

But I think people vastly oversimplify the process of obtaining that information. The better the roleplayer, the harder it will be to tell if they're playing something because of their own issues or because they're able to separate themselves from their character just that cleanly. So if you really want to psychoanalyze someone from their roleplay its never going to be as clear-cut as 'if they play a character who is sexist then they're sexist'. It would be more like, over many campaigns, do they always play a sexist character?

Even then, there could be many reasons - are they doing it because they are enjoying the escapism of being sexist in a fictional world where that's okay, are they doing it in order to lambast or satirize it, etc. Its possible to pick apart these reasons if you play with someone for a long time, but not with a simple generalization.

Also, just because you can analyze a person doesn't mean its a good idea to do so. No one is 'perfect' and no one will have exactly the same worldview. If you're personally bothered by other people holding certain views, its better not to know everything about the people around you so you can actually function in a social group. In the average group of 6 people, at least one person is going to hold at least one view that seems wrongheaded, crazy, or even offensive to someone else in the group, be it a casual '-ism' that they grew up with, a political or religious view, etc.

[lytokk]

I think if someone consistently plays the same character throughout every game its not always a 100% indication of who they are as a person. Sometimes it could be, other times, they know they can play that personality, and have received praise for their good role playing ability. Maybe praise is the wrong word, attention maybe? At least in the case of a bigoted character. Its what they're comfortable playing because they can think in that mindset. It doesn't mean they are in that mindset, but they can think it. Its also something that gives their character a twist, and its a twist they can handle.

Another example, the nerdy type with the shy personality. We've all me a person like this, heck some of us may be this person. But when they sit down to play, shyness all gone and they become one of the best role players at the table. He's just now playing someone with a strong personality, in spite of his (in general) weaker personality.

[SethoMarkus]

I agree with NichG.

While it is possible to psychoanalyze a player over the course of multiple interactions, it is not a simple or clean process. There are many reasons to act or roleplay certain characters, regardless of the actual player's personality and beliefs. This is further complicated by varying degrees of roleplaying ability on the part of the player.

Largely, I would say that through roleplaying alone it is too difficult to accurately measure the morals and beliefs of a player. However, in a face-to-face setting, in a social situation such as a roleplaying game, I think it is a great environment and opportunity to see some of the inner, normally hidden traits of your fellow players. Watching the out-of-character reactions and comments will give much more information than the player's roleplaying can tell.

[Segev]

Honestly, I think a lot of the armchair psychologists on the internet tend to judge people not on "wanting to play a sexist," but on whether they like settings that are hip to whatever social causes the armchair psychologists believe to be important. It's why we get people being offended when a situation is handled as anything other than the glowing paragon of virtue or the disgusting horrible evil that they believe it would be in the real world.

We tend, I think, to see more people accusing others of bigotry (and especially "soft" bigotry through whatever method the armchair psychologist has invented to "prove" that not doing it exactly how they want it done is actually unacknowledged bigotry) when said people's portrayal of something in a game doesn't match how those armchair psychologists believe it should be portrayed.

Have "usually evil" races? Obviously closet racism designed to pastiche real human skin colors and cultures, because the armchair psychologist says so. You have to do it THEIR way - whether that be "all races can be all things, and you can't make any educated guesses until you investigate the situation thoroughly each time" or "your good race had better recognize women as equal to men in all ways" or "your evil race can't have homosexuality as part of its culture because that's saying homosexuality is evil!" or even "your good race had better NOT treat women as identical to men, because no good race would put women on the front lines in a war!" - or YOU are a BAD PERSON because obviously not depicting it the way they would means you're supporting social injustice, or (on the other side, though that seems a lot rarer on the internet in RPG forums, in my experience) you're undermining the moral fabric of society by depicting good as bad and bad as good.

I do get very tired of social crusading. I don't like seeing it hidden in my games, settings, and fiction, but I'll generally accept it as long as my own takes and spins on things are respected. I REALLY don't like seeing it used to attack settings I like on the basis that not only is that setting and its writers promoting "soft bigotry" and "hate," but that anybody who likes it is either too stupid to see it or is a bad person, themselves (or, more likely, both) for not hating it just like the social crusaders do.

Ultimately, I think it is social crusading that causes these vitriolic problems. Your depiction of a fictional situation doesn't paint it in the good or bad light that somebody else feels the situation would represent in real life. Because of this, you are revealing that you are a bigot. After all, only a bigot would think good could come of [social injustice of choice]. And even denying that there is social injustice is proof that you're a bigot.

It's intollerance of perceived intollerance, and a will, nay, a delight in denying the legitimacy of anybody having views different from one's own. You have to like and accept everything they've deemed acceptable and laudible, or you are a bad person. You aren't just disagreeing with them, but actively - by not joining in their hatred of the object of ridicule - oppressing whoever they're crusading for. Often, themselves, in some way. And it can't ever be the reverse; they can't be oppressing you, because you're a bad person and bad people are the oppressors. Your opinion is evil and must be expunged. You can't be allowed to continue minding your own business because that's "soft" bigotry. All things - all role playing, all fiction - must reflect the social justice view of the speaker, because anything that doesn't is active oppression.



I guess what I'm saying is: if you don't like something in fiction, don't hate the people who do like it. Not everything is a social justice cause, and not everything you disagree with is reflective of psychological problems in those who believe it.

But we wind up with these arguments that become personal because fiction is rooted, one way or another, in our beliefs about the real world. So when we see fiction, say, that depicts Communist Russia as a utopia and the USA in the mid-1900s as a barren wasteland filled with greed and hate, those of us who feel that America had some awesome years in that period and that Communism is in fact a source of great evil when put into practice might be a bit offended. But at the same time, those who feel that America WAS (and maybe still is) a wasteland of greed and hate might feel anybody who decries that fiction as flawed is actually a bad person who is trying to justify greed and corruption.

Fiction is, too often, propaganda, and there are people who think that any fiction that isn't actively propagandizing for their social cause of choice is actively oppressing it.

[The Fury]

Without getting into a long and complicated answer, there's definitely a case that can be made for it. After all, people get judged for the kinds of music that they like and one would think that what someone says at an actual table in front of actual people might say more about them than whether or not they like Iron Maiden.
Yeah, there's definitely problems with evaluating someone's personality based on how they roleplay though. Like taste in music, it's an indicator of personality but an unreliable one.

[Kalmageddon]

Spoiler

Show

Honestly, I think a lot of the armchair psychologists on the internet tend to judge people not on "wanting to play a sexist," but on whether they like settings that are hip to whatever social causes the armchair psychologists believe to be important. It's why we get people being offended when a situation is handled as anything other than the glowing paragon of virtue or the disgusting horrible evil that they believe it would be in the real world.

We tend, I think, to see more people accusing others of bigotry (and especially "soft" bigotry through whatever method the armchair psychologist has invented to "prove" that not doing it exactly how they want it done is actually unacknowledged bigotry) when said people's portrayal of something in a game doesn't match how those armchair psychologists believe it should be portrayed.

Have "usually evil" races? Obviously closet racism designed to pastiche real human skin colors and cultures, because the armchair psychologist says so. You have to do it THEIR way - whether that be "all races can be all things, and you can't make any educated guesses until you investigate the situation thoroughly each time" or "your good race had better recognize women as equal to men in all ways" or "your evil race can't have homosexuality as part of its culture because that's saying homosexuality is evil!" or even "your good race had better NOT treat women as identical to men, because no good race would put women on the front lines in a war!" - or YOU are a BAD PERSON because obviously not depicting it the way they would means you're supporting social injustice, or (on the other side, though that seems a lot rarer on the internet in RPG forums, in my experience) you're undermining the moral fabric of society by depicting good as bad and bad as good.

I do get very tired of social crusading. I don't like seeing it hidden in my games, settings, and fiction, but I'll generally accept it as long as my own takes and spins on things are respected. I REALLY don't like seeing it used to attack settings I like on the basis that not only is that setting and its writers promoting "soft bigotry" and "hate," but that anybody who likes it is either too stupid to see it or is a bad person, themselves (or, more likely, both) for not hating it just like the social crusaders do.

Ultimately, I think it is social crusading that causes these vitriolic problems. Your depiction of a fictional situation doesn't paint it in the good or bad light that somebody else feels the situation would represent in real life. Because of this, you are revealing that you are a bigot. After all, only a bigot would think good could come of [social injustice of choice]. And even denying that there is social injustice is proof that you're a bigot.

It's intollerance of perceived intollerance, and a will, nay, a delight in denying the legitimacy of anybody having views different from one's own. You have to like and accept everything they've deemed acceptable and laudible, or you are a bad person. You aren't just disagreeing with them, but actively - by not joining in their hatred of the object of ridicule - oppressing whoever they're crusading for. Often, themselves, in some way. And it can't ever be the reverse; they can't be oppressing you, because you're a bad person and bad people are the oppressors. Your opinion is evil and must be expunged. You can't be allowed to continue minding your own business because that's "soft" bigotry. All things - all role playing, all fiction - must reflect the social justice view of the speaker, because anything that doesn't is active oppression.



I guess what I'm saying is: if you don't like something in fiction, don't hate the people who do like it. Not everything is a social justice cause, and not everything you disagree with is reflective of psychological problems in those who believe it.

But we wind up with these arguments that become personal because fiction is rooted, one way or another, in our beliefs about the real world. So when we see fiction, say, that depicts Communist Russia as a utopia and the USA in the mid-1900s as a barren wasteland filled with greed and hate, those of us who feel that America had some awesome years in that period and that Communism is in fact a source of great evil when put into practice might be a bit offended. But at the same time, those who feel that America WAS (and maybe still is) a wasteland of greed and hate might feel anybody who decries that fiction as flawed is actually a bad person who is trying to justify greed and corruption.

Fiction is, too often, propaganda, and there are people who think that any fiction that isn't actively propagandizing for their social cause of choice is actively oppressing it

.

Well said, I agree completely.

[Sith_Happens]

I'm going to say "fallacy," based on the fact that I once played a character who was a greedy, distrustful [anus], despite my not being one in real life.

[hamishspence]

How about when "how they role-play" squicks-out everyone else at the table?

Does it happen? and what do people tend to conclude when it happens a lot?

[Kalmageddon]

How about when "how they role-play" squicks-out everyone else at the table?

Does it happen? and what do people tend to conclude when it happens a lot?

If the squeaking out was brought up to said player before and was properly discussed then you could possibly conclude that either this person has difficulties understanding the root of the problem you have with him, or that he doesn't care enough, or that he finds you overly sensitive because, well, maybe you are in relation to most people he knows.

None of these elements really tell all that much about him as a person except maybe picturing him as a bit self centered in that context.
More often then not the problem is lack of communication, because it's much easier to just be offended and either lashing out in a non constructive fashon or talk behind someone's back instead of trying to explain things without making accusations.

When there is a problem at the gaming table what matters is solving it, not determining whose fault it is. Much less judging the entirety of a person based on that context.

[Joe the Rat]

There's three things we need to keep separated here: What we play, Why we play, and How we play. The What piece in and of itself is probably the least informative, as it is most influenced by group consensus or GM dictation. And beyond that, it's about preferences for story types.

Why we play - our overt and unconscious motivations - says more about us. This is not always as evident. Are we playing to be our ideal selves - characters who are what we would be if society... or biology... or physics would stop getting in the way? Are we building an ideal world, or one that we have to fight to make 'right'? Maybe we're playing our true selves - what we would do if consequences weren't so permanent - our naked greed, wrath, and other deadlies exposed. Or are we playing to try on a different skin for a while? To see what it would be like to be something different... to stretch our acting chops. Are you in for full-on wish fulfillment? Or maybe we play something because it delivers pseudovisceral or mechanical elements we enjoy. We like rolling dice, we like picking up the pieces and collecting them like a death tally, we like the opportunity to turn our brains off and hack at things. We like a design challenge, or a challenge in design. We like mysteries, and want to puzzle them out...

How... not "are we including objective vs. subjective morality," not "my character is a bullying thug," but what you are doing at the table. Are you stepping on other player's toes, or trying to grandstand every scene? Are you deliberately trying to sabotage the other players - or the GM, and is that the goal of the game? Are you trying to push everyone through the narrative? Are you stepping back and letting everyone do their thing? Are you fastidiously tracking everything, or forgetting to write stuff down? Are you cheating? You could be the brawniest barbarian or the spooniest bard, and be a bully to the other players. Do you spend more time playing or complaining?

How says more than Why says more than What. And even then, it's pretty situational. You could be as easily letting the real you out as you could be trying out a character. You're looking for consistent patterns - probably enough so that you could piece it together based on everything else you know about someone as the game itself.

[The Oni]

A lot of times, the characters people play in RPGs are the characters they wish they could be IRL. Other times they aren't.

I'll tell you what I've played; tell me what I am.

I've played:

Spoiler

Show

(PF) A LG anti-slavery white-haired witch/monk with 20 INT, no social graces and an obsession with chivalry. His day job is that he has his crab familiar cut people's hair with her claws and acts as her manager. He and his neighbors were kicked around their entire lives as serfs, so he tries to act super manly but often fails (low Cha/Wis). I play him with a French accent.

Spoiler

Show

(PF) A TN giant-armed Barbarian (Mad Dog) tiefling. He's missing one of his arms, because his past revolves around being captured as a young boy (a man by the Tribe's standards though) by paladins. The paladins tried to "re-educate" him in hopes that he would becomes a productive member of society, but that got ****ed up when a rogue Inquisitor of the order burned his arm off with holy fire (that was the "source of his evil" apparently) and he replaced it with a Flying Blade attached to his arm by a chain. Needless to say he's not big on religion. Smarter than he lets on. Shares a kinship with his dire bat companion.

Spoiler

Show

(D&D 3.5, using the Rokugani Adventures books) A very pretty CN carp hengeyokai swashbuckler who used war fans. Part of his combat strategy was that people would mistake him for an unarmed woman before he drew the weapons and with a successful Bluff check, he'd get bonuses to attack them by surprise. He was actually on a mission from the Dragon Goddess to go find the Celestial Brush he failed to protect because he was busy screwing a local daimyo's daughter. Part of the joke was he was going to use his Hengeyokai powers to prestige into Warshaper and acquire breath weapons - thus evolving into Gyrados.

Spoiler

Show

(PF) An CG half-orc Fighter who had been born into an evil Human work camp but escaped. He had high Charisma because everyone just somehow *liked* him inexplicably, he seemed to have this aura of optimism but he couldn't talk very well, could barely read at all, and used starknives as his weapon of choice.

Spoiler

Show

D&D An CG Elven bard who thought he was Indiana Jones. His performance was Oratory and he was moderately famous. He used a whip, but it turned out he was terrible with it. His greatest achievement was convincing a master thief to surrender rather than be killed (the rest of the party wanted to kill her) by using Ventriloquism to impersonate the entire Night's Watch of the town over, and surround the building she was in.

[ClockShock]

I'm going to say "fallacy," based on the fact that I once played a character who was a greedy, distrustful [anus], despite my not being one in real life.

I'll also say fallacy, but for the opposite reason.

[valadil]

There are a number of reasons why someone may roleplay a character a certain way. They're not worth enumerating. Some players play character similar to them, others go for characters who are different. Some act on a whim doing whatever seems fun at the time, while others only take actions that represent their character's inner core. Some are just bad at roleplaying. Or they got bored and wanted to see a fight happen instead of more haggling with that damned innkeeper.

Anyway what I'm getting at is that you can't just judge the actions, you also need the motivation. And I wouldn't be surprised if the motivation is more telling than the action. "I want to annoy the GM," tells me more about someone than "I burn down the imaginary orphanage."

I'm not going to pick fallacy or legit. I think there's probably something to be gleaned from roleplaying and it's probably comprable to what can be gleaned from other social activities. I'm sure I've judged people based on the movies sitting on their shelf, but I have no idea if I've gotten any useful information from doing so.

[Fiery Diamond]

A lot of times, the characters people play in RPGs are the characters they wish they could be IRL. Other times they aren't.

I'll tell you what I've played; tell me what I am.

I've played:

Spoiler

Show

(PF) A LG anti-slavery white-haired witch/monk with 20 INT, no social graces and an obsession with chivalry. His day job is that he has his crab familiar cut people's hair with her claws and acts as her manager. He and his neighbors were kicked around their entire lives as serfs, so he tries to act super manly but often fails (low Cha/Wis). I play him with a French accent.

Spoiler

Show

(PF) A TN giant-armed Barbarian (Mad Dog) tiefling. He's missing one of his arms, because his past revolves around being captured as a young boy (a man by the Tribe's standards though) by paladins. The paladins tried to "re-educate" him in hopes that he would becomes a productive member of society, but that got ****ed up when a rogue Inquisitor of the order burned his arm off with holy fire (that was the "source of his evil" apparently) and he replaced it with a Flying Blade attached to his arm by a chain. Needless to say he's not big on religion. Smarter than he lets on. Shares a kinship with his dire bat companion.

Spoiler

Show

(D&D 3.5, using the Rokugani Adventures books) A very pretty CN carp hengeyokai swashbuckler who used war fans. Part of his combat strategy was that people would mistake him for an unarmed woman before he drew the weapons and with a successful Bluff check, he'd get bonuses to attack them by surprise. He was actually on a mission from the Dragon Goddess to go find the Celestial Brush he failed to protect because he was busy screwing a local daimyo's daughter. Part of the joke was he was going to use his Hengeyokai powers to prestige into Warshaper and acquire breath weapons - thus evolving into Gyrados.

Spoiler

Show

(PF) An CG half-orc Fighter who had been born into an evil Human work camp but escaped. He had high Charisma because everyone just somehow *liked* him inexplicably, he seemed to have this aura of optimism but he couldn't talk very well, could barely read at all, and used starknives as his weapon of choice.

Spoiler

Show

D&D An CG Elven bard who thought he was Indiana Jones. His performance was Oratory and he was moderately famous. He used a whip, but it turned out he was terrible with it. His greatest achievement was convincing a master thief to surrender rather than be killed (the rest of the party wanted to kill her) by using Ventriloquism to impersonate the entire Night's Watch of the town over, and surround the building she was in.

From this I would conclude that you are probably good at role-playing and at least a generally decent, perhaps actively good, person.

I could be wrong, however. I only have this post to go on.

I agree with Joe the Rat and Segev quite a bit on what they had to say.

[veti]

We tend, I think, to see more people accusing others of bigotry (and especially "soft" bigotry through whatever method the armchair psychologist has invented to "prove" that not doing it exactly how they want it done is actually unacknowledged bigotry) when said people's portrayal of something in a game doesn't match how those armchair psychologists believe it should be portrayed.

I don't disagree, but it's worth remembering "the Internet effect" on that perception.

I don't know how old you are, but I remember when I was about 14 or 15, having a long and traumatic argument (drawn out over several weeks) about Subject E, which left me - after much soul-searching - a convinced supporter of E. And in that mindframe, I learned to see (the thing that E is against) all around me, in all contexts, and I "learned" that it was my solemn duty to oppose it at every opportunity.

A lot of people go through phases like that. It's really tiresome for everyone around them, and that's part of the reason why teenagers tend to hang out with other teens - it's much easier to tolerate that kind of thing if you're going through it yourself at the same time.

As I matured, while I still believed in E, I came to see it as just one of many things worth getting upset about. There are also subjects A-D, and F through about V, some of which are at least as important as E. I came to see that most people have good causes of various sorts, that they attach different priorities to them, and I shouldn't judge them for failing to see (or remark on) 'E' in a given context. And therefore, I'm much, much slower to weigh in on Subject E than when I was 15.

But the thing is: on the Internet, there are always some people who are 15. (Or equivalent, different people reach this stage at different ages, some people "get" a new cause for the first time in their 30s or 40s.) And there's no way of telling who they are. What you can pretty much guarantee, however, is that they'll be the loudest, most noticeable posters whenever their personal Subject E comes up. And they'll be able to perceive 'E' in contexts where it would never have occurred to someone who didn't share their obsession.

And therefore, in discussions on the Internet, this whole attitude appears to be much stronger/more prevalent than it really is. There may be 80% of people who aren't interested in judging you at all, 15% who think about the issue but don't see the need to speak up because they know you're a complex person with more things than that on your mind and they're not privy to all the information - and 2% who see the issue and can't stop themselves from attacking it. Who, in turn, will usually attract the other 3% who see the attacks, and can't resist weighing in against them (thereby, incidentally, reinforcing the 2% in their belief that they're the only, lone crusaders who really understand, and the world needs their message). And that 5% of posters are the ones who'll make 90% of the noise.

[Urpriest]

I don't think it's ever as simple as "you roleplay/write a world containing X, therefore you think X is ok!"

But I think that the type of fiction a person enjoys (which influences the worlds they write, and the characters they play) does say something about who they are, or more properly, what they know. Basically, a poor treatment of a sensitive subject indicates that someone either doesn't understand that their treatment is poor, or doesn't understand that the subject is sensitive. Those are both potentially important points of information. Similarly, someone playing a cliche by itself doesn't tell you anything...but if they play a cliche, and clearly don't recognize that they are playing a cliche, then that tells you a great deal.

The language of fiction that the person is comfortable with is also relevant. One person on this forum apparently had a DM who had their wyrmling gold dragon character raped by Ogres for not behaving lawfully enough, despite having previously allowed the character to be chaotic good. The use of rape itself is not the problem, the problem is in the fact that the DM and player (and hopefully most of us) have very different views on what constitutes good use of rape in fiction.

[The Oni]

I don't think it's ever as simple as "you roleplay/write a world containing X, therefore you think X is ok!"

The problem is that some people DO think that way. In the same way that people decried Battle Royale or The Hunger Games as supporting the murder of children, or thought 1984 was an instruction manual for good governance, or supposed Jonathan Swift was fond of the sweet taste of Irish babies.

Obviously a world will have [Bad Stuff X] in it, because if it's written exactly the way the writer thinks the world should be, it'll be a helluva boring campaign.

[Delwugor]

Role Playing in a game is not the same as Real Life.
Real Life People are not the characters they role play in a game.
You judge characters by how they are role played in a game.
You judge people by their words and actions in real life.

In other words, no.

If the question came about from the thread going on about the NPC then to me it was obvious that the accusations of sexism where completely unsubstantiated. But once the accusation was made, people starting jumping on the EVIL GM Bandwagon, and the thread went downhill fast.

I have seen this type of accusation bandwagon before on GitP, and personally I wish the moderators here would remind people that unsubstantiated accusations do not belong in a friendly forum like GitP.

[jedipotter]

Which I think raises an interesting point: how much can you really tell about a person and his moral values from the way they roleplay, either as a player or as a GM?

My personal opinion is that you can't really tell all that much.

It can tell you tons about a person. But, then everything does.

To put it simply and bluntly, there is a huge difference between believing something and just faking it. And most people can't fake it.

And a great many people can't role play things they don't like or don't agree with. They won't even want to pretend that what ever they really think in Real Life is wrong. Few people can stray too far from who they are, even if it is just for an imaginary character.

Only a handful of gamers can role play anything. The rest are stuck just being slight variations of themselves.

[Lorsa]

I think how you roleplay can tell things about you, but who you roleplay and what actions your character takes less so.

With how I mean how you interact with the other players at the table.

[Themrys]

Well I think any social interaction with a person can provide information to their real self, even if the interaction is them pretending to be a fictional character.

This.

And if someone is not interested in whether other players have fun, too, this says a whole lot about that person.

If a man plays a sexist male character, he's Schroedinger's sexist, so to speak.
When I tell him that I don't feel comfortable with sexism in the game and would prefer him to play a non-sexist character, and he then insists that my fun is irrelevant, then he has proven himself to be a terrible person and very likely sexist, too, although that doesn't matter, since I don't want to roleplay with him anyway.
If, on the other hand, he calmly explains that he thinks prejudiced characters are a good opportunity for roleplaying conflict, and agrees to play a misandrist amazon instead, or a character who hates elves, or whatever all players at the table feel comfortable with, he has proven himself to be okay and not a sexist.


And that goes for all roles one can play. In larp, I have been lucky enough to have never encountered the "mysterious" assassin who murders ordinary people on their way to the loo, for no other reason than the fact that the player wants to be a mysterious assassin.
I am perfectly happy with that, and, as a matter of fact, would judge the player of said assassin. Negatively. It is well known that almost no one wants their player character murdered, which is why no one in their right mind would play an assassin who actually murders player characters.

It is usually quite easy to tell whether someone plays an unlikable character because they really are like that, or whether they do it because they think it's fun for everyone.
That's because someone who wants everyone to have fun will not look for an easy victim to murder/spew their hate to, but for someone who has fun talking to, or otherwise interacting with their unlikable character.

With GMs, it can be a bit trickier, but complaining will make everything clear in that case, too.
If they don't think that everyone should have fun, they are terrible people.

[Kalmageddon]

If, on the other hand, he calmly explains that he thinks prejudiced characters are a good opportunity for roleplaying conflict, and agrees to play a misandrist amazon instead, or a character who hates elves, or whatever all players at the table feel comfortable with, he has proven himself to be okay and not a sexist.

Wait, what?

[hamishspence]

The point being made was that all the player wants to play, is someone prejudiced- for the roleplaying challenge- they don't care what the prejudice is- and they're willing to change it if the other players are made uncomfortable by it.

[Morithias]

I would say it depends on the person far too much.

Often times my roleplaying is based on something from a video-game or movie I saw. Other times it actually IS based on my own political beliefs.

There are basically two consistencies in my characters.

1. The character is almost always female.

and

2. The character is attracted to management positions.

These two reasons are rather simple.

1. I am a male to female transsexual, and therefore playing a female character allows me to escape my body.

and

2. I enjoy simulation games. I played Simcity when I was a kid and it stuck.

Other than that anything goes. I've played the pragmatic tyrant who played the world for fools while debating "What is evil". I've played the innocent merchant who was the last heir to an ancient empire representing Catherage while the other PC was a warrior butler who represented Rome. I've played Vow of Peace healers, and Amazon Battle Maidens, murderous Deathstalkers, and hardworking merchants.

All in all there is probably only things you can truly tell about me, is that I find the mundane fascinating and play female characters.

But by all means, please try to judge me, I want to see what other secrets I've given out in this post.

[The Oni]

See, I don't think that's necessarily a fair assessment. Is a misandrist Amazon less offensive than a misogynistic anything-else? Not really. Perhaps more acceptable because it's an established cliche and has been played for laughs far more often than taken seriously.

Prejudiced characters can be great. For example, the characters I mentioned earlier. My LG witch/monk is a chauvinist. He doesn't hate women, by any means; on the contrary, he's very much a White Knight. The way it manifests is that he sometimes does stupid and reckless things to protect women even when those women have proven themselves more competent in combat than he is. Yes, it makes him a flawed character, yes, it gets him in trouble - and that's why I play him that way.

[Kalmageddon]

The point being made was that all the player wants to play, is someone prejudiced- for the roleplaying challenge- they don't care what the prejudice is- and they're willing to change it if the other players are made uncomfortable by it.

See, this is a bit of fallacy right here.
One could have preferences towards what his character should be predjudiced. I roleplayed an old warrior once, he was fat, drunk and pretty much thought that all women were tavern wenches ready to sit on his lap to hear about his greatest victories. He was extremly sexist towards women and it was fun to roleplay him that way because, obviously, most women wouldn't play along and he had to come up with some kind of excuse to cover up his falure in seducing them ("she must be married" "I must have killed her father in one of those glorious battles!" "well she wasn't my type anyway!").
Roleplaying a misandric amazon would be roleplaying a completly different character and thus I would not agree to do that instead.
Sometimes it's fun to roleplay a character in relation to a specific kind of group, like women in the case of the previously mentioned character.

And this is where the fallacy comes into play, because sice I refused to change my character according to Themrys I'm now a bad person, sexist and so on... Except that I'm not, because it simply shouldn't be necessary.
What I mean is that if you have such huge problems with some aspects of life then it should be said straight away, explained to everyone in the gaming group and then discussed before starting the campaign so that you never have to deal with it.
If you get to the point where you are roleplaying alongside someone that somehow offends you with his character or setting then it is you who did something wrong, namely thinking that everyone will share your point of view by default and have the same issues you have.
As I said before, communication is essential.
If you have to confront someone about something beyond that point, there is no right or wrong, it's simply a matter of who's kindest. The person roleplaying the awkward character might be kind and mature enought to say "ok, I'll change character/tone it down", or you might be kind and mature enough to say "look, I know you don't mean any of this stuff in real life, so go ahead, I'll just deal with it".
This need to point fingers and call someone a bad person, I really don't understand.

Now it would be interesting to see if Themrys would still find me sexist for roleplaying a character like the one I described above even if no one in my gaming group, which included two girls by the way, was offended in any way.

[AgentofHellfire]

If a man plays a sexist male character, he's Schroedinger's sexist, so to speak.

...this, I have to say, is stretching it really thin.

Given especially that in order for a character played to be prejudiced, one generally has to acknowledge that the flaw in their thinking exists, which of course a truly prejudiced individual wouldn't consider a flaw. They wouldn't call their own avatar "sexist". (Or racist, or whatever)

When I tell him that I don't feel comfortable with sexism in the game and would prefer him to play a non-sexist character, and he then insists that my fun is irrelevant, then he has proven himself to be a terrible person and very likely sexist, too, although that doesn't matter, since I don't want to roleplay with him anyway.
If, on the other hand, he calmly explains that he thinks prejudiced characters are a good opportunity for roleplaying conflict, and agrees to play a misandrist amazon instead, or a character who hates elves, or whatever all players at the table feel comfortable with, he has proven himself to be okay and not a sexist.

What about the third option?

What if the player in question says that he/she wouldn't demand that your character, who has several traits he finds uncomfortable, be shifted for the sake of his comfort--since, of course, you're allowed to have some fun--and that his fun shouldn't be infringed upon either? Especially since he already made the character and played a few games with him.

(From my own view personally, if I hadn't actually started to play the game with the character I'd definitely shift, but...)

[Metahuman1]

It might show you something about them. Or maybe that they just happen to enjoy a certain style of game play.


I like to play melee heavy good guys a lot of the time cause it's a fun archetype for me. Doesn't mean in real life I like to run around giving out vigilant justice.

[The Oni]

Other than that anything goes. I've played the pragmatic tyrant who played the world for fools while debating "What is evil". I've played the innocent merchant who was the last heir to an ancient empire representing Catherage while the other PC was a warrior butler who represented Rome. I've played Vow of Peace healers, and Amazon Battle Maidens, murderous Deathstalkers, and hardworking merchants.

All in all there is probably only things you can truly tell about me, is that I find the mundane fascinating and play female characters.

But by all means, please try to judge me, I want to see what other secrets I've given out in this post.

Unfortunately I don't have enough insight into those characters to play armchair psychologist (although I sincerely love playing armchair psychologist, mind you). Your assessment seems as likely as any. Have you read a lot on Jung, by chance?