Hello Kaoru,
This may seem a bit obvious, but I find simply talking about whats important to your character, much like in the real world, can bring up differences in how priorities are handled. Perhaps an example is in order, fortunately I have a bit of experience playing the devils advocate.
Discussion formed around the "Garlean" menace at the Coffer & Coffin between myself and a few people, we picked apart and refuted what we each felt was the key point of contention when standing up against them. Their expansionism, The people themselves, the Religious forms. This ended up including a rather heated discussion, while remaining mostly civil.
If politics aren't your cup of tea you could also speak about institutions or third parties known to both people. Discussing a mutual acquaintance can lead to the arguing over the disassociation between idea and reality.
Whenever I want to add a touch of ideological tension (and while this is of course subjective to the setting.) I often bring up Racial or Regional traits. Commenting on the barbarism of the tribal cat-folk, the lack of civilization among the common Limsan is often enough to get people to be a little more outspoken.
That I suppose is the crux of it for me, I enjoy both the more rigid formal tones and interactions as well as occasionally pushing buttons to make people shed the veneer of carefully crafted neutrality and speak on their opinions unburdened.
Hope that helps, or at least provides a little perspective on how I approach it. I'd love to discuss it more if you have the time and some major points you would like to address.
Thanks.
This may seem a bit obvious, but I find simply talking about whats important to your character, much like in the real world, can bring up differences in how priorities are handled. Perhaps an example is in order, fortunately I have a bit of experience playing the devils advocate.
Discussion formed around the "Garlean" menace at the Coffer & Coffin between myself and a few people, we picked apart and refuted what we each felt was the key point of contention when standing up against them. Their expansionism, The people themselves, the Religious forms. This ended up including a rather heated discussion, while remaining mostly civil.
If politics aren't your cup of tea you could also speak about institutions or third parties known to both people. Discussing a mutual acquaintance can lead to the arguing over the disassociation between idea and reality.
Whenever I want to add a touch of ideological tension (and while this is of course subjective to the setting.) I often bring up Racial or Regional traits. Commenting on the barbarism of the tribal cat-folk, the lack of civilization among the common Limsan is often enough to get people to be a little more outspoken.
That I suppose is the crux of it for me, I enjoy both the more rigid formal tones and interactions as well as occasionally pushing buttons to make people shed the veneer of carefully crafted neutrality and speak on their opinions unburdened.
Hope that helps, or at least provides a little perspective on how I approach it. I'd love to discuss it more if you have the time and some major points you would like to address.
Thanks.
