Is it better do die IC or to live OOC?

[Drakevarg]

Just a bit of roleplaying philosophy I've been mulling over. To elaborate the title question, say you're in a situation where you, as a player, can see a way out, but it's one that your character, as he's been characterized, would never do.

My question is, in this situation would you rather compromise your character's personality in the name of survival, or allow them to die because that's simply how the character would react to that scenario?

[FirebirdFlying]

Probably die. It depends, really - I don't want to fall into the trap of 'that's what my character would do, so I'm going to throw aside all practicality now' - but deaths can be good stories in their own right.

[Mystic Muse]

I'd allow them to die because that's simply how they would react.

[Oracle_Hunter]

For most RPGs, you follow the character; the character doesn't follow you. Certainly if all that is at risk is your character's survival, let him die if that is how the character would go; who knows, maybe you'll survive despite it

Now, if it comes down to "do I doom my party and/or ruin everyone's fun by being in character" then you need to do what's best for the game, not just what your character "should" do.

[nyarlathotep]

Well it depends on how much it is that you consider comprising your character. If it is something that it is possible your character could learn on the fly I see no problem with it, but if it's really really out there for your character to know take it like a man and die true to your concept.

[Tengu_temp]

Will my character's death be awesome? If so then yes, I'll let the character die. If it'd be something plain and anti-climatic, I'd rather live another day.

[The White Knight]

It is quite common for one to act in a fashion very contrary to their typical moral adjustment in a situation where their life is at stake. Asking "how would my character react to this certainly lethal situation" is a pretty tough call.

[Saph]

It depends. In the short term you want your character to live. In the long term, though, having a character die an appropriate death can be more satisfying than having them survive in an uninteresting way.

Being cautious and not putting your character at risk means that your character will be longer-lived, but the players who are willing to put their characters' lives on the line often seem to have more fun.

I think in the end it comes down to what kind of compromise we're talking about. If it's just something that your character wouldn't have thought of, then I'd probably say to keep them alive. If the only way to keep the character alive is to go against the core of their personality, though, I think I'd stick with it. You might get a last-second reprieve, and heroic last stands always make for good stories.

[Drakevarg]

It is quite common for one to act in a fashion very contrary to their typical moral adjustment in a situation where their life is at stake. Asking "how would my character react to this certainly lethal situation" is a pretty tough call.

Well, the question wasn't nessicarily a matter of moral compromise. It could also be a matter of temperment. For example, I play a character who's a Grade-A Blood Knight, and will almost certaintly get himself killed one day for picking a fight with someone he really shouldn't have. And though I, as a player, know full well not to mess with the dude in shiny armor covered in glowing runes, my character would probably punch him in the face for giving him lip, because that's simply how he rolls.

Of course, there are other matters to consider. For example, there's a high-level ranger that's been our guide for the last few sessions, and my character wouldn't mess with him because he's learned through personal experience that said ranger could easily curb stomp him. (He's one-shotted my character in the past, and got in a fight with a mountain-sized Earth Elemental and WON.) The hypothetical glowy rune-guy, however, has yet to prove to my character that he's someone worth taking seriously, and hence is a valid target for face-punching.

[AtopTheMountain]

Depends on several criteria.

1. If the character's death would be awesome and epic, kill.

2. If I've spent lots of time and effort on the character and have become attached to it, live.

3. If it's an extreme situation (like someone with 6-7 int or wis), kill.

4. If I am interested in seeing everyone's reactions, kill.

Etc. etc.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Live to fight another day, I always play my characters with a survivor mindset, so this hasn't arised yet.

[Lord Vampyre]

It's rare for me to design a character that would run into this delimma. The only way I can see doing it is if the character knows he would be able to accomplish his objective with his death. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs as he has to be able to justify the fact that he will never know for sure if he actually has succeeded in his objective.

For instance said Paladin is willing to sacrifice himself to save an orphanage by taking out the BBEG. Now to do this he takes the wizard's staff of the magi and runs into the room with the BBEG and breaks it (having been told by the wizard that it will create a huge explosion that will probably kill said BBEG). Now, paladin knows very little about magic and has to take the wizard's word that is how things will work. Although the paladin is familiar to working with faith alone to guide him, he knows that if this doesn't work the way the wizard states, the BBEG is just going to destroy the orphanage anyway. Thus, his death would've been for nothing.

It's easier for me to play a character that has failed than one that has sacrificed himself for nothing.

[oxybe]

i could care less, it all depends on which would lead to a more fun game overall.

i am more then willing to break character if it means a more fun game overall for those sitting around the table. then again, i don't think i've ever been in a scenario where my only options were "break character or die"

[kyoryu]

Better to die than break character.

That being said, most individuals have a very strong aversion to death, and require extraordinary circumstances to deliberately sacrifice their life. In most cases, "don't die" is very much *in* character.

[jiriku]

Yeah, unless you're playing a character who's either suicidal or a bone-headed idiot (and admittedly, people do play those sorts of characters), it's hard to imagine a situation in which keeping yourself alive is "out of character". For example, the hot-headed knight faced with rudeness from a clearly superior opponent might seeth with anger but take no immediate action, instead plotting revenge upon the fellow who insulted him -- but at a time and place that favors him, rather than his opponent.

[Drakevarg]

Perhaps I should widen the criteria a bit. I just use life vs. death because exaggerating the stakes often helps get the point across. Often, but not always.

To rephrase the question: Is it better to stick to character, even when it gives you the disadvantage, or simply grab at every opportunity that comes by?

Playing a Lawful character is a good example here. There are many, MANY cases where being Lawful is highly inconvienient to the PC's stereotypical goal of killing everything in sight and stealing everything that isn't both nailed down and on fire.

But again, it doesn't need to be a matter of morals. Take my Blood Knight again. Say, hypothetically, that he comes across a character with whom allying himself would be greatly advantagous. However, said character is an obnoxious prick waving around authority he hasn't earned. As such, my character tells this fellow to shove his allegience where the sun don't shine. Because as inconvienent in the long term as it is, my character would simply never put up with such a person.

[Jolly]

Huh, for some reason I read the OP as "would you meta-game to save your character's life" not "would you act in a way seemingly opposed to your alignment/backstory etc if the character knew that to remain constant would cause death."

I should specify a second reading shows that is inaccurate, but that was my initial impression.

[Drakevarg]

Huh, for some reason I read the OP as "would you meta-game to save your character's life" not "would you act in a way seemingly opposed to your alignment/backstory etc if the character knew that to remain constant would cause death."

I should specify a second reading shows that is inaccurate, but that was my initial impression.

Well, it's an equally valid concern, just not the one I was contemplating.

[Caphi]

Die, but only if it's awesome. Dying like the most in-character dog in history is stupid; better to live to play another scene. But I'll gladly give my character's life if it's an epic scene that everyone will be talking about for months.

[Amphetryon]

Playing a Lawful character is a good example here. There are many, MANY cases where being Lawful is highly inconvienient to the PC's stereotypical goal of killing everything in sight and stealing everything that isn't both nailed down and on fire.

Lawful Neutral, "Judge"

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her.

[Drakevarg]

I don't see what's so confusing. If you're somehow under the belief that having a personal code means you can just rearrange it whenever it's convienient, then I think you're kinda missing the point.

I didn't say "Lawful character can't do X because it's against the law." It could just as easily mean "Lawful character can't do X because it violates their standards."

[Zaydos]

I have seen LG characters who literally did steal everything that wasn't nailed down and on fire (we lit the building on fire, and decided to loot as we left). I was CG, with the stated trait of Steal from the Rich and Give to the Poor, and wondering why they were letting me get away with it. I gave 40% to the poor... they kept it all. The DM said I infringed my good alignment... my jaw still drops when I think about it (I pointed out the other character was LG and he wasn't saying anything to them, and that I had in fact given money to the poor like my character was supposed to and he backed off). Actually that part is on topic, it was better OOC to take all the loot for myself, but it wasn't what my character would do so he kept some (because he would need it to continue his quest for good) and gave away the rest.

I have a bit of a blood knight character right now and he wouldn't pick a fight with someone who was obviously much stronger than him (he got owned by an old man in his back story and learned his lesson). He wants to fight a worthy opponent, not get himself killed at random.

I usually play characters with a strong will to survive and above average Int and Wis so my base assumption is that I'm playing a character smarter than myself. Although I'm actually making more characters with low mental stats now (because I stopped using rolled abilities and I'm now using Point Buy) so that might change.

Ultimately I'd say do what your character would do, you'll be the better gamer for it.

[Drakevarg]

That's one thing that's actually kind of interesting about my Blood Knight fellow. He's actually got fairly goot INT and WIS despite being a Gnoll, which are stereotypically not all that bright. (13 and 15 respectively.) Thing is, the dude's so utterly psychotic that he often willfully ignores the fact that he's well aware that X is a very bad idea, just because he thinks it'll be fun.

Though he is "vaguely" realistic about what he's capable of. Punch your way up a cliff? Sure, no problem. Go Shadow of the Colossus on the mountain-sized Earth Elemental that just swatted the mountainside next to you into nonexistance? Are you kidding? I'll be squashed like a bug!

(Though in honesty it was because he felt that his inevitable death wouldn't be cool enough. Being killed in a battle royale against a dozen men after killing one or two of them looks badass just because it's ballsy. Getting squished offhandedly by a several-hundred foot tall monster just looks embarrassing.)

[Zaydos]

That's one thing that's actually kind of interesting about my Blood Knight fellow. He's actually got fairly goot INT and WIS despite being a Gnoll, which are stereotypically not all that bright. (13 and 15 respectively.) Thing is, the dude's so utterly psychotic that he often willfully ignores the fact that he's well aware that X is a very bad idea, just because he thinks it'll be fun.

Though he is "vaguely" realistic about what he's capable of. Punch your way up a cliff? Sure, no problem. Go Shadow of the Colossus on the mountain-sized Earth Elemental that just swatted the mountainside next to you into nonexistance? Are you kidding? I'll be squashed like a bug!

(Though in honesty it was because he felt that his inevitable death wouldn't be cool enough. Being killed in a battle royale against a dozen men after killing one or two of them looks badass just because it's ballsy. Getting squished offhandedly by a several-hundred foot tall monster just looks embarrassing.)

Does he think it's worth it? In character; would he think it was worth going up against this guy who he thinks could probably kill him? Would it look bad ass enough for him? If yes, then you have your answer; if no, then that's an answer too.

[FelixG]

Well, as i generally play characters who are as smart if not smarter than me....and i see a way out with the information i am given (which generally should be in character things i can make out) and knowing my characters abilities as i do (i am him after all) then i see no reason to let myself die when the the character would know he has ways out.

My groups do a fairly good job of keeping OOC information to a minimum though!

[El Dorado]

I'd do whatever's appropriate and/or interesting for the character. For example, I played a proud, confident drow fighter-mage. The party halfling got dumped into a nearby mountain river and was in danger of drowning. The drow jumped in, confident that she could rescue him. She pulled him to a piece of floating debris but in the process, she succumbed to the cold and drowned. The other players later remarked that this stands out as the first time the drow performed a genuinely heroic deed. I (and the DM) know that my character's decision was more a matter of overconfidence than self-sacrifice but I was nevertheless satisfied with her actions and how they resonated with the rest of the party.

[Drakevarg]

Well, as i generally play characters who are as smart if not smarter than me....and i see a way out with the information i am given (which generally should be in character things i can make out) and knowing my characters abilities as i do (i am him after all) then i see no reason to let myself die when the the character would know he has ways out.

My groups do a fairly good job of keeping OOC information to a minimum though!

I think you misinterpreted the question the same way Jolly did. I'm not talking about the absence of presence of information that would allow him to know the way out. I'm talking about situations where he sees a way out, but wouldn't take it because doing so would be out of character for him. (I.E. telling a Paladin "eat this baby or die.")

[FelixG]

I think you misinterpreted the question the same way Jolly did. I'm not talking about the absence of presence of information that would allow him to know the way out. I'm talking about situations where he sees a way out, but wouldn't take it because doing so would be out of character for him. (I.E. telling a Paladin "eat this baby or die.")

Ohhh i see, that is a more interesting conundrum! In that case I would likely let the character die, but maybe ask a concession from the GM on the following character, such as letting the new character be born with the same XP as i died with as i followed th character concept through to its logical end.

If i am going to be Penalized for being put in a loose loose situation however i may take the less character way out and justify it with RP and pennance. (live to fight another day even if the characters morals are broken for a single instance.)

[shadow_archmagi]

A character is a vehicle for my amusement, and the amusement of my friends.

Only I decide what his personality is. Therefore, his personality can never fail to meet my goals.

Say I want to play a barbarian who gets very angry. He comes up against an opponent who is clearly trouncing him.

He *could* fight to the death, which would be in character, or he could scream in frustration, do whatever it took to survive, and swear revenge. That'd also let me play a seriously angry character.

Maybe he could even call in reinforcements to show that he's willing to let his hatred for this opponent overrule his commitment to single combat.

It'd all make for interesting development.

[Devils_Advocate]

Well, normally, the personality that one assigns to one's character is the one that one wants to roleplay. And thus, if you gave your character things that he values more than his own survival and/or power, then you want him to choose those things over survival and/or power.

Normally. But there's always the possibility that a character could wind up working out differently in practice than one expected. In such a case, it's up to you whether your character changes his mind in response to these unexpected circumstances.

But generally, if you want to seize every advantage, then you roleplay an opportunistic character. The question is whether that's what's most satisfying. It might feel unchallenging and/or maybe a little bland.

Article!