[for DM] What's the consensus about coward characters?

[Entessa]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.

I was thinking about making a character who was told that he was destined to do great (and in fact he is not that bad at fighting), but secretly, well, he is a coward. He would like to avoid fighting

In general, I think the concept could be cool and would be about the growing of a character from coward to "hero". No pacifism here (like "I'm not going to fight this beholder that is eating these guys because he deserves to live exactly as us"), mostly like "how can I satisfy the will of my ancestors/father/tribe", and live "happily" knowing that there is a stigma if he doesn't go for it.

Edit: Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

[Telonius]

It can work, if the players are all down with it and the character (at least eventually) contributes. It would intersect very well with a "party face" character - the guy that does all the talking. It could even explain why somebody would lean into diplomancy, especially if they're really good at it. If there's a Paladin (or whatever in your game or edition is immune to fear) in the party, even better. The Paladin might be dismissive of the coward initially, but the coward could be secretly (or not so secretly) jealous of the Paladin's immunity to fear. Could set up a really interesting roleplay dynamic.

That said, it does require some work with the party and the DM. For the DM, make sure you design encounters that can be solved socially; but not so many that it becomes The Bard Show. For the party (players), they've got to be prepared in case Sir Robin bravely runs away.

[MoiMagnus]

"Negative" characters can be a hassle. When I say "negative", I mean "character defined by what they don't want to do". But it's fine for "positive" characters to have "negative" traits.

If you play an academics that is adventuring to find ancient knowledge, it's reasonable for your character to be a coward. After all, they well intend to come back to their library alive. Your character has a negative drive which temperate his main positive drive: seeking knowledge. Having this positive drive is important, as it means that if your character were to reject a plan because "it's too dangerous", they still have some objectives to guide "well, then, what do we do instead?".

On the other hand, if you simply play an academics who never signed for danger and only wishes to come back home, and only marginally care about accumulating knowledge (or wealth, or whatever) or helping their friend, then it can be quite annoying. The main drive of your character is negative, and you force everyone around the table to compensate for it.

It's also important to check things with your GM. Some RPG systems, or at least some GM playstyle, can heavily encourage or punish coward characters.

For example, if your GM/RPG focus on making "level appropriate" encounters, then the balance of the encounter likely rely on the assumption that every PC will try to play optimally, which mean that a character which is too much of a coward will actually be problematic for the team.

On the other hand, other GMs/RPGs give to the players tons and tons of safety nets (or at least the ability for players to set up safety nets given enough anticipation), which is great for cowardly characters as it allows your character to still actively contribute toward the objective and then "getting out of there" (followed by everybody else) when things goes wrong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are "coward characters" and "coward characters". One who would prefer not to fight, will generally try to avoid fighting, and will generally prioritize defense over offense when the party is forced to fight (but will contribute)? That's ok.

One who, when the party decides to fight wants to sabotage the party? Or will just disappear/hide in a corner and not participate? In a D&D game specifically, that's not so ok. Especially the first part.

The key question to ask is "why is the rest of my party willing to have me around despite my <flaw>?" If you're struggling to find an answer or if there are even significant doubts as to why, IMO it's time to reconsider the character. Those reasons will depend on the party.

[Lemmy]

It's okay to be a coward... it's not ok to be useless (or even worse, a hindrance)... After all, if you're either of those, why is the party bringing you along in the first place??

Even if the rest of the party enjoys the company of your character, they'd probably much rather you stayed away, somewhere safe, for both your and their sake (I doubt many soldiers would like to have their civilian friends and family members out with them on the battlefield).

Fortunately, you can be a coward and still contribute enough to be worth keeping around. There are plenty of tasks that a coward can still do competently.

You can even participate in combat. In fact, you should. Specially in combat-centric systems, such as D&D.

Combat is a situation where you allies are risking life and limb, presumably for your sake too. So even if your character is too cowardly to fight directly, he should still try to be useful in some way. Maybe he only attacks from far away, or just quietly heals and buffs his allies, while doing his best to remain unnoticed (or at least a low-priority target) to the party's opponents.

[gijoemike]

A character like this can absolutely work... in the correct party. If the rest of the party are a bunch of murder-hobos they are in direct conflict with your character concept and I just don't see it working out. But you can play a fighter that just doesn't like fighting and tries to avoid it. S/he learns a face skill or begins reading the same books as a wizard. S/he later multiclasses and becomes a gish.

In those early fighter levels take disarm or trip. When a fight does happen, you are never the one to start it and just trip the enemy and declare to them "you have lost this just give up." The mook pulls out a dagger you reach over and take it way and say "No, we aren't doing this while I have a hangover." (you say perfectly sober). You can win the fight quickly with bravado and intimidation. It is possible to come off as a bad ass yet not actually fight. As a coward in a fantasy setting don't draw out the fight or go for gore. Don't relish power attack and keen weapons. Instead go for combat expertise and trip.


The big thing to remember in fantasy settings there are fights you just HAVE to have. Undead cannot be avoided or reasoned with. Dire Wolves most likely cannot be lured away and the party must deal with the pack, dragons are there to eat you. Mindless evil, true evil, and hungry animals must be fought sometimes, but just hate it. The trick is to avoid fights with humanoids and intelligent monsters. Talk to the orc/fey/devil instead of murder hobo. Always mention that fighting them is a terrible idea. The odds aren't in our favor, etc.

[mucat]

I once played a ratfolk who was venturing onto the strange and frightening surface world in search of new imports to revitalize his family's failing trading business. And the little guy had a cowardly streak. He was afraid of the Sun. He was afraid of zombies. He was afraid of bankruptcy. He was afraid of cats. He was afraid of storms and dragons, which he pretty much thought were two words for the same thing. He was afraid of hornet adders, which do not actually exist.

He did, though, have a fierce loyalty to the new friends he'd made, and a determination not to return home a failure. These two traits kept him active and contributing to the party and the story, even at times when he would rather curl up and hide. He would charge headlong at the drake that had grabbed the party wizard, or negotiate trade deals over dinner with a caravan of catfolk, even when clearly scared out of his mind.

So I would say a cowardly character is fine, as long as cowardice is not their sole defining trait. Give them a strong motivation to stay in the game even when they want to cut and run, and they can be a memorable and vivid character that everyone is glad to have at the table.

[Easy e]

They can be great fun to play, but are less fun to GM for.

The key thing is that the coward can not get in the way of what the party is trying to do. Once they start doing that, they are no fun for anyone.

[Xervous]

Echoing what others have said here, so long as it doesn’t get in the way of other players or the game it can work.

[t209]

How about Flashman, Ciaphas Cain, and Rincewind?
Coward but with good luck and PR (ambiguous for Ciaphas Cain).

[Telok]

1. Don't screw the party.
2. Be a net positive.

Thats all. Manage that and you should be good.

Played Shadowrun with some people trained on D&D (great GM tho, long time SR GM). Naturally they all made different gun bunnies except the guy who did a physAd ninja type. No technical skills (I think only one of them could drive and the ninja could barely hotwire an old car), no first aid, no magic, etc., etc. I'd been expecting that and pulled out a cybered summoner face using skillwires (load a skill on a datachip to use, not as good as knowing it yourself but servicable) & foci (pricy magic boosters but sommoners couldn't cast spells so those points went into the summoning foci) with lots of contacts & social skills.

It worked out fine. I think my only direct "attack" in the campaign consisted of blindly sticking a smg out a door and spraying bullets in the direction of enemies. It might have made someone duck.

[Pex]

For D&D, if you refuse to do anything in a combat why are you playing? You can be for all the roleplaying drama you want. D&D has combat. It exists. D&D does not need to apologize for it. It will happen. Participate in the combat. As a spellcaster, summon creatures to do the fighting for you. Buff the party. Debuff the enemy. Alter terrain to your favor. Do something while hiding in cover. Don't just Dodge every time all the time and/or run away. It is an acceptable tactic to cast a Concentration spell that is so crucial the party needs it or they will lose such that you cast it and Dodge forever the rest of the combat. That can happen once in a while, not every combat. As a non-spellcaster, you're an archer. Hide behind cover and plink away. Depending on the combat scenario it's possible combat isn't the goal. The party engages the enemy while you deal with the McGuffin or whatever task that is the point of being there. That's fine too.

What you never do is absolutely nothing. Play the game, not despite the game. Play with your fellow players, not despite them.

[elros]

From the GM perspective, it is hard to have one character split off and act differently from the rest. If you are sitting back as the GM handles combat with the rest of the party, and then glossing over what your character does when not fighting, then it would work.
The other challenge is for you to make meaningful contributions while not fighting, but that is doable. For example, you could focus on battlefield control or other non-violent actions. If you discuss your actions with the GM before the game session, the GM can figure out how to make it work.

[Vahnavoi]

Asking for consensus about anything remotely unpopular just returns laundry list of reasons for not doing it. Don't ask that question. If you feel like doing it, ask how it can be done well.

In any case, the chief problem facing a cowardly character is that a lot of game masters neglect thinking of what would happen if a character actively avoids and flees from danger. On a practical level, this means actually playing cowardice leaves you unable to progress or actively penalizes you.

As for it being a "hassle" to your "party".... look. In group-oriented military and paramilitary cultures, cowardice is virtually defined as failing your group, while courage is defined as taking risks to help it. If other characters have this mentality, being a coward should lead you to expect being hated and expelled from the group. Your best hope is a loose collection of individuals who are all implicitly following "every man for himself" mentality. In such a case, your decision to stay out of danger will be respected, you may even get other characters to join you in pursuit of less dangerous paths.

The closest you can get to being a coward while still staying within mainstream paradigms of play, is to very carefully count your odds and hedge your bets, always taking and advocating for the safest course of action. If you are good with game mechanics, it helps if you can do and show your work. Some game masters dislike cautious play like this. Hope yours isn't one.

[Kraynic]

What does bravery look like in the games you play? If bravery is boldly standing your ground before any threat, even when you don't know what it is, then the character that takes cover behind a nearby tree with their bow is "cowardly" (but might actually survive if things go bad).

[Rynjin]

For D&D, if you refuse to do anything in a combat why are you playing? You can be for all the roleplaying drama you want. D&D has combat. It exists. D&D does not need to apologize for it. It will happen. Participate in the combat. As a spellcaster, summon creatures to do the fighting for you. Buff the party. Debuff the enemy. Alter terrain to your favor. Do something while hiding in cover. Don't just Dodge every time all the time and/or run away. It is an acceptable tactic to cast a Concentration spell that is so crucial the party needs it or they will lose such that you cast it and Dodge forever the rest of the combat.

This is an important note. As a character in the party, you must contribute to combat. However, "contribute" does not necessarily mean "deal damage". zDPS characters are perfectly viable.

Hell, I'm playing one right now in a Pathfinder game. He has a number of buffs he can concentrate on for free as a Move, or spend spell points to make them last. Normally he opts for the former option, because it's free.

So when combat begins he's usually already got one buff up (we move at half speed as a party to search for traps etc. anyway), and throws on a second, flexible buff (I have about 4 options to choose from, all good in different types of combat) at the start of combat. And...that's it. All his actions are taken up buffing the party, and generally the only reason I need to stay engaged at the table is I have stuff that can make the party and enemies reroll stuff as needed. Oh, and my new summoned warrior companion (flavored as a "non-coward" [read: non-wizard] version of him from a different universe).

This is a big contribution to party effectiveness, so it works. If you character does NOT bring anything like that, it's hella frustrating.

[Vykryl]

Ever seen the Court Jester? The hero in that movie wasn't the most eager to fight, though useful in other ways. Kept getting hexed to do things far outside his comfort zone, with no or little memory of those events. Could be entertaining with help from the party

[Kesnit]

This is an important note. As a character in the party, you must contribute to combat. However, "contribute" does not necessarily mean "deal damage". zDPS characters are perfectly viable.

I once played an Warlock/Cleric/Eldritch Disciple who would not cause HP damage to enemies (except with his Eldritch Blast, because, well, it's a major class feature!) All invocations and prepared spells were buff/debuff or did ability damage. He had the ability that let him heal at a distance. (Yes, I know in-combat healing isn't optimal, but neither was the group I played in.)

He would never get into combat, but if happened, he was there to make sure his friends survived. He also made a really good face, given his focus on CHA.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.

If you have to ask, you already know the answer.

Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

+1.

1. Don't screw the party.
2. Be a net positive.

That's all. Manage that and you should be good.

This is good advice. It takes effort, and it takes the player really getting into the character to find out what they can do to contribute within the constraints of the concept, and it's not hard for it to blow up in your face now and again.

Discuss with fellow players before trying this. find ways to contribute.

[Pauly]

How about Flashman, Ciaphas Cain, and Rincewind?
Coward but with good luck and PR (ambiguous for Ciaphas Cain).

Flash Harry got stuck in the soup because of his undeserved reputation for bravery and his desire to keep his social standing.

In RPG terms there has to be something that overcomes his desire to run away in screaming terror. Some things that got Harry into adventures were
- fear if being found out
- blackmail
- getting drugged and/or shanghaied
- fear of what his party members would do to him if he backed out
- trying to avoid an even worse danger
- volunteering for what seemed to be a cushy job
This is a bit too over the place to make for a good RPG character.

So in a RPG with a consistent party there has to be a steady force that keeps the character from running off and abandoning the party.
Some possibilities.
- They need the protection of the party (example Dr Smith in Lost in Space, Vila in Blake’s 7)
- Social repercussions of being found out (the general situation for Flashman. I think this would work best with dwarven culture in D&D).
- Being hexed or otherwise bound to another party member (example: Pigsy in Journey to the West, although Pigsy isn’t technically a coward he definitely is against taking any unnecessary risks)

[NichG]

For me, this'd be fine in any campaign where the things which the character seeks to avoid are failure states or occasional seasonings rather than where the main gameplay is. And as long as the character has some reason to proactively pursue things, rather than having to constantly be forced into things. But with enough lead time, its always possible to find/make a system and campaign premise which would support that, so in general I can work with this if the player lets me know. If they suddenly spring this as a replacement character in a combat-heavy campaign, that's a problem (and I'd at that point say 'is this your way of saying you're not interested in the combat parts of what we're currently doing?' and see about maybe switching campaigns).

So e.g. 'I hate violence and danger, so rather than fighting the enemy I'm always going to try to figure out a way to negotiate and deal and compromise. And since its riskier to try to do that on the spot, I'm going to find a way to get in contact with potential future enemies and make those negotiations in advance as much as possible!' is great. 'I hate violence and danger, so DM could you have me be conscripted into the kingdom's military and forced to travel with the other PCs?' is not a character I'd want to run for.

[Stonehead]

Being a full on Scooby Doo, "run away from combat" coward might not work, but the reluctant hero is a classic staple of adventure stories. It's been mentioned here that they all have a reason to overcome their fear and participate in the story. Creating a reason like that and working it into the story is more work, so in a sense it's a hassle, but in that sense it's also a hassle for the GM to work anyone's backstory into the campaign story. Most games are made better though, when the GM puts in the effort to tie the characters into the story on a personal level.

I think a lot of players have played with some horrible backstabbing cowardly thief-type characters, and have a negative gut reaction to cowardly characters as a result. I have the same thing for evil characters though (even CN tbh), but evil characters can still be fun to play with.

[Tawmis]

I am wondering if playing a coward character would mean a hassle for my dm and my party.
I was thinking about making a character who was told that he was destined to do great (and in fact he is not that bad at fighting), but secretly, well, he is a coward. He would like to avoid fighting
In general, I think the concept could be cool and would be about the growing of a character from coward to "hero". No pacifism here (like "I'm not going to fight this beholder that is eating these guys because he deserves to live exactly as us"), mostly like "how can I satisfy the will of my ancestors/father/tribe", and live "happily" knowing that there is a stigma if he doesn't go for it.
Edit: Well, after reading the post again, I'm not sure it's a good idea.

I think this could be played well, with an RP - with starting as a coward and finding your strength.
I'd work with your DM - to find that "moment" that the DM could inject - to be the turning point for your hero.

It's important to note - that being a coward doesn't mean running away - but the character vocalizing their doubts, is a perfect example of still portraying the coward, but having the skill to be able to fight when you need to.

"As I swing, I say to the others, 'There's so many goblins! I don't think we can win!'"
- So you're still engaging in combat, and conveying the cowardly aspect of the character.

[False God]

The context of the campaign matters.

If you're doing some kind of roleplay intensive game where there will be a lot of time dedicated to non-combat activities, character development and there are non-combat solutions to many potential combats, you'll be fine.

If you're doing some form of a combat-heavy game, or if if the game is a low-roleplay "beer and pretzels" sort of thing, I'd advise against.

It really depends on what the game is being sold as, and what the players are interested in doing.

Certain system will also make this easier or harder, systems with heavy combat focus and little focus on character qualities will make this more difficult to play, both for you and for the party/GM. More story-oriented systems will make it easier (usually).

As other people have said, if you don't being immediate combat value, you need to ensure that your character brings other value to the party. Crafting. Socializing. Exploration. Your character is not some NPC the party is required to have around in order to complete the quest.

Beyond that, it's always your right as the player/character to determine what fights you get involved in, and what fights you don't. "Contributing" to the party is not the same as backing up all their bad decisions and running head-first into every bit of danger and trouble that presents itself.

[Composer99]

To my knowledge, there are definitely games where you could play an inveterate coward and still contribute towards the table having a good/fun/enjoyable/satisfying game session.

Since this question is presumably about D&D (given the reference to DMs), D&D as a game doesn't really have a lot of support for that kind of gameplay. You can do it, but it takes a suitable table culture (so to speak) and effort to make the character work in spite of the lack of support from the system. To my mind, the instance of cowardice in this Critical Role episode works just fine, but I could see it being a sticking point at many tables. (Obviously, a gaming table made up of professional actors is not typical for a D&D game.)

The best best approach is to discuss with the DM and fellow players in advance of starting play, and work out the mechanics and portrayal of your character in a way that both suits your vision for it and doesn't step on their toes. As a DM I would certainly be happy to work with a player having a vision of someone who starts out cowardly but grows in a way that lets them overcome it (even with backsliding). As others have said, a lot might depend on how much combat is going to matter to the table you're playing at as well.

You likely can't go wrong having a mixture of roleplaying and character mechanics that let you contribute positively towards the success of the group in-fiction despite the character's cowardice (the character is scared but manages to pitch in anyway) and/or in keeping with it (the character avoids DPR but does things like buffs/debuffs/healing/crowd control, allowing them to contribute while staying out of the thick of things), which from what I've read is pretty consistent with other suggestions.

[Jophiel]

Not saying much new but you did ask for "consensus"

A character who is a hindrance or dead weight in a party isn't much fun for the group. So avoid characters who just curl into a ball at the sight of danger or run away or turn invisible and climb a tree. But you can still approach it from a few angles:

Engage in combat from range. Role play hiding in the doorway or behind the crates you're using for cover as you fire your crossbow. Climb that tree to get out of melee range but then throw daggers or flasks of oil. If something gets in melee range, describe turning your head away as you sloppily stab at it ("Get it off me!"). There's a number of combat options that most people would see as tactical but you can fluff as acts of fear, allowing you to maintain the illusion of cowardice while not weighing the party down.

Play a support role. The obvious choice here would be to play a utility/support caster with the usual healing, buffs, debuffs, environment shifting, etc. This might be harder if you want to evolve into a fierce warrior though you could always start slotting in offensive spells later on. For a more melee role, you can use actions to administer potions or healing, Help actions, ball bearings/caltrops, etc. This might be harder to keep up and really feel useful and I would still try to mix in some of the other combat refluffing already mentioned.

Neither of these might feel like "true" coward but a true coward in a D&D group is going to be like a video game escort mission and everyone is going to hate protecting and dragging your weight around to the point where the party would operate better by ditching you in the next town. Also, this is just about combat; you can make arguments for the less dangerous path each time, describe how you sink down when a call is made for volunteers, comically declare surrender at inappropriate (non-combat) role play moments, etc. Just start with the core idea that you're going to be a contributing character and view it as a challenge how to dress cowardice around that.

[Pauly]

Another aspect you can bring to the character is that your character will always be looking for the non-combat solution to the problem
- Why don’t we try talking to them first?
- Can’t we just sneak in? we don’t really need to fight those guards do we?
- Why don’t we bribe these NPCs to fight them for us?
- Let’s just run straight for the door without stopping.
- Remind me why going on a side mission to slay a dragon is a good idea in the first place. It’s a delay and distraction from out main mission. I’s what the BBEG woukd want us to do.

It also depends a lot on the class you intend to play. A class that is has a lot of ranged support and non-combat utility (eg Rogue, Bard, Wizard) is a good fit for the character design. A class that is supposed to be melee heavy with limited non combat utility (eg Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin) is a poor fit for the character concept.

[ross]

Why are you asking us how your group will feel about something? Don't you think you would be able to get a more accurate answer from your group?

[Jophiel]

Why are you asking us how your group will feel about something? Don't you think you would be able to get a more accurate answer from your group?

While you're going to be talking to your group eventually, I think it's well worth it to cast a net for opinions or experiences about your plan. Be able to say "Hey, I was thinking about playing this but not like THAT..." so hopefully people will be more receptive.

Also, a number of people aren't going to tell a fellow player NOT to play something. They might inwardly groan or roll their eyes but ultimately feel like it's your character, your choice. Or not want to tell a friend that their idea is a bad one. So going into it with a plan on how to make it more enjoyable is a great idea.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you do wind up playing such a character, you'll want to be careful that you don't internalize too much of it. It's not that disruptive to play a reluctant hero who keeps getting thrown into situations that terrify him as long as you the PLAYER are happy to keep making the horrible life decisions endemic to PCs everywhere. From your aside about pacifism, it sounds like you're ready for this, but it's worth watching out for all the same.

(Cowardly PLAYERS who are convinced that every opportunity is a trap and every NPC will immediately double-cross them, are right at the top of my mental list of disruptive player archetypes. I'd much rather have the rules lawyer or the perpetually-rules-illiterate person; at least they're not actively trying to keep interesting things from happening.)