RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Seriphyn · **04-16-2015, 04:11 PM**

(04-15-2015, 11:45 AM)Verad Wrote:
(04-15-2015, 04:16 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: But my issue is this; if I wanted to play an authentic English Knight, I would play a fair-skinned Briton. If I wanted to play an authentic Samurai, I would play a Japanese gentleman. If I wanted to play an authentic Maasai chieftain, I would play a dark-skinned Kenyan. Similarly, if I wanted to play an authentic Ishgardian Dragoon, I would play an Elezen or Hyur. If I wanted to play an authentic Ala Mhigan, I would play a Highlander. And so on. I don't believe in the argument "It makes it more interesting", because I don't believe that an exotic race or exotic occupation is needed to make your character interesting (it is your character's character which makes your character interesting!). Moreover, if being a race that defies that nation's norm is intended to make the character more interesting, why is it always Miqo'te?

The farther this goes, the less reason you have to play your character.

This is not a general you. This is a specific, Kale-centric, you.

You do not need to play an officer of the Immortal Flames, or a member of the military in general. These are outward trappings. It is Kale's character that makes them interesting. You do not need to play a gladiator or somebody trained as such for the same reason. It is the personality that counts.

Likewise, none of us need to play in a setting that relies on magic, exotic races, or fantasy in general. Why can we not ignore these trappings? It's ourÂ characterÂ that makes our characters interesting.

This is the same argument that disparages fantasy and places value only in realist fiction. Why are we using it for this?

For the life of me, I can not find any spot to re-insert myself into that behemoth (or steaming pile of shit depending how you look at it) thread I created. However, this quote has actually been another discussion I've been meaning to start.

I'm not going to go on a spiel about it because I think people basically get the general idea of it. To use Verad's example of my character, he is right. I actually play him according to an ESTJ type as a guideline, and this is not contingent on anything existing in the game world. A no-nonsense, upfront, diligent communitarian. If I inserted Kale as an Ishgardian knight, a Lominsan naval captain, a Gridanian ranger, or a Garlean centurion, he would be exactly the same. He would express his views in the same manner, but it was just be tailored according to his nation of origin. It would still be in the same vein of "you are part of a greater whole" either way.

I feel this is a core aspect of character building. "My character is an Ul'dahn Sultansworn/Ishgardian Dragoon/etc". No, let's not do that. Let's boil down our characters to the most generic level that they could exist in any fictional setting. "My character is paternalistic and society-oriented worker soldier", or something (even soldier might be too specific!). I feel everyone will come up with greater characters if they look at who their character is first, and what their character does second.

Verad · **04-16-2015, 04:40 PM**

(04-16-2015, 04:11 PM)Seriphyn Wrote:
(04-15-2015, 11:45 AM)Verad Wrote:
(04-15-2015, 04:16 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: But my issue is this; if I wanted to play an authentic English Knight, I would play a fair-skinned Briton. If I wanted to play an authentic Samurai, I would play a Japanese gentleman. If I wanted to play an authentic Maasai chieftain, I would play a dark-skinned Kenyan. Similarly, if I wanted to play an authentic Ishgardian Dragoon, I would play an Elezen or Hyur. If I wanted to play an authentic Ala Mhigan, I would play a Highlander. And so on. I don't believe in the argument "It makes it more interesting", because I don't believe that an exotic race or exotic occupation is needed to make your character interesting (it is your character's character which makes your character interesting!). Moreover, if being a race that defies that nation's norm is intended to make the character more interesting, why is it always Miqo'te?

The farther this goes, the less reason you have to play your character.

This is not a general you. This is a specific, Kale-centric, you.

You do not need to play an officer of the Immortal Flames, or a member of the military in general. These are outward trappings. It is Kale's character that makes them interesting. You do not need to play a gladiator or somebody trained as such for the same reason. It is the personality that counts.

Likewise, none of us need to play in a setting that relies on magic, exotic races, or fantasy in general. Why can we not ignore these trappings? It's ourÂ characterÂ that makes our characters interesting.

This is the same argument that disparages fantasy and places value only in realist fiction. Why are we using it for this?

For the life of me, I can not find any spot to re-insert myself into that behemoth (or steaming pile of shit depending how you look at it) thread I created. However, this quote has actually been another discussion I've been meaning to start.

I'm not going to go on a spiel about it because I think people basically get the general idea of it. To use Verad's example of my character, he is right. I actually play him according to an ESTJ type as a guideline, and this is not contingent on anything existing in the game world. A no-nonsense, upfront, diligent communitarian. If I inserted Kale as an Ishgardian knight, a Lominsan naval captain, a Gridanian ranger, or a Garlean centurion, he would be exactly the same. He would express his views in the same manner, but it was just be tailored according to his nation of origin. It would still be in the same vein of "you are part of a greater whole" either way.

I feel this is a core aspect of character building. "My character is an Ul'dahn Sultansworn/Ishgardian Dragoon/etc". No, let's not do that. Let's boil down our characters to the most generic level that they could exist in any fictional setting. "My character is paternalistic and society-oriented worker soldier", or something (even soldier might be too specific!). I feel everyone will come up with greater characters if they look at who their character is first, and what their character does second.

The thing is, this is not how a lot of people actually view one's personality as being constructed. Character-as-intrinsic isn't often seen as being as important as character-as-construct in which your character would notÂ be in the same vein based on their origins. See my earlier post in the thread.

Edit: Annnnd I just realized this is another thread entirely. All right, let me stretch this a bit.

The thing of it is, if the character is going to be the same no matter what, why bother making him any of these things? If they have no impact on the character, what purpose is there in including them? If your character can be condensed down to a single personality type, then playing the essence of that personality type is character enough.

However, I gather that would be unsatisfactory in some form. Otherwise, why didn't you do it?

**Unnamed Mercenary** · **04-16-2015, 04:49 PM**

I'm really not sure what you're looking for here. People create characters and motivations uniquely. I, for one, did not start with a generic archetype when I made Franz. I'll detail his creation.

"Hey, could you NPC as a GarleanÂ wearing heavy iron armor?"
me: Sure! Hm...what kinda personality do I want to give him? What if he's crazy?
me: WHAT IF HE DOESN'T HAVE A NAME?
me: WAIT. NO. WHAT IF HE -CAN'T- REMEMBER HIS NAME?!
>Crafts armor. "I'm the Unnamed Mercenary for X event."
>Manages to not have his NPC killed off.]
>NPC was actually kinda fun
>NPC has a grudge against some actual people IC
"Kinda getting boring of this Elezen I have...."
BRINGING BACK MY 1.0 HIGHLANDER
*loads old char into 2.0 as an alt*
You know though.....I don't really wanna relevel.Â
KILLING OFF MY ELEZEN!
Aether hijinks
BUT WHAT IF MERC FEELS BAD ABOUT IT?!
>This man is now "Franz".

Yssen · **04-16-2015, 04:49 PM**

(04-16-2015, 04:11 PM)Seriphyn Wrote:
(04-15-2015, 11:45 AM)Verad Wrote:
(04-15-2015, 04:16 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: But my issue is this; if I wanted to play an authentic English Knight, I would play a fair-skinned Briton. If I wanted to play an authentic Samurai, I would play a Japanese gentleman. If I wanted to play an authentic Maasai chieftain, I would play a dark-skinned Kenyan. Similarly, if I wanted to play an authentic Ishgardian Dragoon, I would play an Elezen or Hyur. If I wanted to play an authentic Ala Mhigan, I would play a Highlander. And so on. I don't believe in the argument "It makes it more interesting", because I don't believe that an exotic race or exotic occupation is needed to make your character interesting (it is your character's character which makes your character interesting!). Moreover, if being a race that defies that nation's norm is intended to make the character more interesting, why is it always Miqo'te?

The farther this goes, the less reason you have to play your character.

This is not a general you. This is a specific, Kale-centric, you.

You do not need to play an officer of the Immortal Flames, or a member of the military in general. These are outward trappings. It is Kale's character that makes them interesting. You do not need to play a gladiator or somebody trained as such for the same reason. It is the personality that counts.

Likewise, none of us need to play in a setting that relies on magic, exotic races, or fantasy in general. Why can we not ignore these trappings? It's ourÂ characterÂ that makes our characters interesting.

This is the same argument that disparages fantasy and places value only in realist fiction. Why are we using it for this?

For the life of me, I can not find any spot to re-insert myself into that behemoth (or steaming pile of shit depending how you look at it) thread I created. However, this quote has actually been another discussion I've been meaning to start.

I'm not going to go on a spiel about it because I think people basically get the general idea of it. To use Verad's example of my character, he is right. I actually play him according to an ESTJ type as a guideline, and this is not contingent on anything existing in the game world. A no-nonsense, upfront, diligent communitarian. If I inserted Kale as an Ishgardian knight, a Lominsan naval captain, a Gridanian ranger, or a Garlean centurion, he would be exactly the same. He would express his views in the same manner, but it was just be tailored according to his nation of origin. It would still be in the same vein of "you are part of a greater whole" either way.

I feel this is a core aspect of character building. "My character is an Ul'dahn Sultansworn/Ishgardian Dragoon/etc". No, let's not do that. Let's boil down our characters to the most generic level that they could exist in any fictional setting. "My character is paternalistic and society-oriented worker soldier", or something (even soldier might be too specific!). I feel everyone will come up with greater characters if they look at who their character is first, and what their character does second.

Part of the issue is that people seem to be predisposed to thinking that a person has not done any character work at all, simply because they are playing something that might seem irregular. They write them off instantly because the character they are playing is a Miqo Ishgardian Dragoon, or some such. While it is true that there are people that have not done a lot of character work that play something irregular, it is also true that there are people who have done some really in depth character work. Just as it is true that someone playing something more "normal" can also not have done a lot of character work.Â

In short, irregular character concept and in depth character work are not mutually exclusive. Nor is playing someone playing something irregular reasoning to assume that someone has not worked hard coming up with their character and concept. Yar.

Faye · **04-16-2015, 04:49 PM**

I think everyone plays/makes their character differently. Some people see the DRG job in the game and think, "Wow, that looks really cool!" so they make a dragoon and then assign that character a personality and traits. Others think, "I want to play short-fused, womanizing extrovert!" and then assign a class/job/race/etc. to that character. I don't believe either way of doing it things really makes for "better" role-playing, because ultimately, that will always just boil down to the creativity, wit, and writing skills of the role-player.

Aduu Avagnar · **04-16-2015, 04:52 PM**

(04-16-2015, 04:40 PM)Verad Wrote: The thing is, this is not how a lot of people actually view one's personality as being constructed. Character-as-intrinsic isn't often seen as being as important as character-as-construct in which your character wouldÂ notÂ be in the same vein based on their origins. See my earlier post in the thread.

Edit:Â Annnnd I just realized this is another thread entirely. All right, let me stretch this a bit.

The thing of it is, if the character is going to be the same no matter what, why bother making him any of these things? If they have no impact on the character, what purpose is there in including them? If your character can be condensed down to a single personality type, then playing the essence of that personality type is character enough.

However, I gather that would be unsatisfactory in some form. Otherwise, why didn't you do it?

because the roleplay in and of itself would be different. Taking Kale as an example. If he had been from Ishgard, he would most likely have been an Elezen/midlander, Xenophobic, maybe a dragoon (little d).Â

That changes the way that the character would interact with others, beyond just his base personality.

Verad · **04-16-2015, 04:55 PM**

As another example, waaaay back before I introduced Verad in his current state to the RPC and was just dipping my toe into the RP community, he was a young Midlander rather than an elderly Duskwight.

The differences in both how he behaved and in player reactions were profound, and I hadn't even really begun fleshing out the character. Changing him to what he is now had a huge impact despite being fundamentally the same concept.

Verad · **04-16-2015, 04:58 PM**

(04-16-2015, 04:52 PM)Nako Wrote:
(04-16-2015, 04:40 PM)Verad Wrote: The thing is, this is not how a lot of people actually view one's personality as being constructed. Character-as-intrinsic isn't often seen as being as important as character-as-construct in which your character wouldÂ notÂ be in the same vein based on their origins. See my earlier post in the thread.

Edit:Â Annnnd I just realized this is another thread entirely. All right, let me stretch this a bit.

The thing of it is, if the character is going to be the same no matter what, why bother making him any of these things? If they have no impact on the character, what purpose is there in including them? If your character can be condensed down to a single personality type, then playing the essence of that personality type is character enough.

However, I gather that would be unsatisfactory in some form. Otherwise, why didn't you do it?

because the roleplay in and of itself would be different. Taking Kale as an example. If he had been from Ishgard, he would most likely have been an Elezen/midlander, Xenophobic, maybe a dragoon (little d).Â

That changes the way that the character would interact with others, beyond just his base personality.

And I'm suggesting that his "base" personality is changed far more significantly by what he is than what he claims.

Faye · **04-16-2015, 05:12 PM**

I think nationality/race/job/class etc. do have some bearing on a character's personality. They should not be what define our characters, but they play a role in who are characters are. If I made Faye, say, a tribal Seeker of the Sun, at the end of the day, she may essentially still be Faye. But a lot would have to change about her, especially if I wanted her character to make any sense. People are shaped by our environments. Growing up a Midlander in a wealthy household in the Shroud is a far cry from growing up a Seeker huntress in a tribe in Thanalan. She would be a very different person.

Val · **04-16-2015, 05:39 PM**

(04-16-2015, 05:12 PM)Faye Wrote: I think nationality/race/job/class etc. do have some bearing on a character's personality. They should not be what define our characters, but they play a role in who are characters are. If I made Faye, say, a tribal Seeker of the Sun, at the end of the day, she may essentially still be Faye. But a lot would have to change about her, especially if I wanted her character to make any sense. People are shaped by our environments. Growing up a Midlander in a wealthy household in the Shroud is a far cry from growing up a Seeker huntress in a tribe in Thanalan. She would be a very different person.

Pretty much this for Val as well. I chose Seeker of the Sun only because it aligned well with the general personality I had planned out for the character. He is entirely obsessive/territorial of his lady because he sees her as his. He prides himself in combat and seeks it to settle all debts because that's how he was taught in said tribe.

If he were a Midlander or something growing up in the city, while the personality could very well be somewhat the same, I don't think he'd have the same depth to him as he does now. He has mother and father issues that he simply will notÂ talk about, nor admit to almost anyone. He's very prideful, but not for the right reasons. He's not well versed in society and his ignorance in etiquette and other things gives me a lot of comedic moments to throw around (like when he tried to write a book proclaiming himself the greatest lover in Eorzea). All of these things are what makes Val a unique character unto himself, and if his race/nationality changed, so would a great deal of that.

Cato · **04-16-2015, 06:00 PM**

I've always considered a character's race to be fairly important. Then again consistency is something I value quite highly when it comes to immersing myself in a story. Some characters fare better than others when it comes to 'what if' situations.Â

A stereotypical mercenary could be portrayed by pretty much any race though if somebody claims to be something along the lines of a noble or guardian of the Holy See from Ishgard then it's going to take a lot of justification if they're playing as something other than an Elezen.

I also feel that if something is generally painted as being unique to one particular race then it is often wise to ensure that it remains largely exclusive to the race in question. Otherwise we end up with an unfortunate situation where racial lore is watered down in favour of whatever happens to be the most popular race soaking up...pretty much everything.

Khadan · **04-16-2015, 08:01 PM**

The entire concept of this thread could be boiled down to a nature vs. nurture question. For example we know for a fact that person's socio-economic situation, cultural influences, parental influences, and education have -huge- implications that shap someone; especially in their formative years (roughly ages 3 to 12). How you develop personally and psychologically will have large influences on what skills you develop and especially on what fields of interest you have.

Now before anyone raises their finger to go "BUT...!" yes, we do account for outliers in these situations. They're called outliers for a reason and will continue to be outliers until the 'average' stops being average.

What does all that pyschobabble mean for the layman and/or roleplayer? Well it means that if you really want to crawl into your character's head and determine their life from A to B, why they are the profession they are in your RP, and how that came about? You essentially need to design an actual human being from birth to adulthood. Sounds pretty daunting, doesn't it? Good. It should be. Especially since the goal for so many is 'immersion' and all that.Â

As a sidenote, you don't need to 'live the life of your character from age three to thirty' in order to figure out the kind of person they are. It's shown in the majority of psych-studies that 'in general' while environment often influences nature, it's major events that will stick with the individual. So just bullet point out largely influential events in their life and fill in the rest as you go; in fact the 'rest' will practically fill itself in for you.

GloryRhodes · **04-16-2015, 08:46 PM**

There's a lot to be said for a character that can be torn down into a base component, and a lot of cynical essentialists like to look at characters as archetypes with accessories added on. Â Papalymo, for example is "Stodgy Wizard" with "Aggravating Sidekick" added onto it. Â That's a fine character, and there's a lot to do with that, but it's not the only method of doing things, nor is it the necessarily correct method.

Merylvyb could easily be said to be "Warrior Queen" with "Pirate" tacked on, but it doesn't actually say much about her, unlike the Papalymo example above. Â She requires more explanation because she is a more nuanced character. Â The Admiral of Limsa Lominsa is defined not only by whoÂ she is, but by whatÂ she is as well. Â She would not be the same character without the weight of responsibility placed upon her by her position, and she would not handle that responsibility the same way were she in charge of Gridania or U'Dah.

As much as we may try to define our characters as individuals independent of their circumstances, eventually all characters, if they are written long enough, become shaped by their setting and experiences individually if they were not crafted that way from the beginning.

An Elezen Dragoon and a Hyur Dragoon might be similar in experience, but different in personality, but a Miqo'te Dragoon would be different in both. Â Done well it provides an interesting perspective on both the character's personality and their circumstances, and even done poorly it could provide new perspectives, which would allow for new interaction experiences.

Since this is pulling from the other thread, and this thread is directly in reference to it, I would like to respond by saying that when it comes to lore, it exists to define a world we play in and set up the rules for interacting with it, but in a collective creative environment such as the one we have, it also provides a framework which allows for exceptions to those rules.

While I don't believe that one should break the lore without knowing it, and the reason why and consequences of the break, adhering to it for the purpose of comfort or some kind of misinterpreted sense of authority, forgoing exceptions to it, is not productive and is entirely non-conducive to an entertaining dynamic group experience.

And we are all here to be entertainers even as we are being entertained.

/twocents

industrythirteen · **04-16-2015, 09:08 PM**

I'm building a new character for 3.0, which will become my Au Ra. I'm running into a bit of a wall without much Auri or Othard lore to help flesh out the character. Until then, I'm keeping things pretty general, starting with what I can know about her, which is personality, and how I want her to behave. I like to play my characters as consistently as possible, allowing for the inevitability of change.Â

Then I'll frame her formative life events to fit that personality, or events that I think suit her. I think in a way that I work best backwards when it comes to creating characters or telling stories. I like to have an idea of my near-end product first. When I'm painting, I also have a mental vision of what I want the final to look like. I just work towards it one step at a time, self-correcting as needed.Â

I think that we, as people, are essentially characters ourselves. I'm not filling a role, I'm not in a book, but I am none the less, a construct. I've been shaped by life events, my genetic dispositions, culture, etc. I do not exist in a vacuum. So, I know that my roleplay characters can't either. This is why I find lore to be important, but its part of a larger gestalt. It will give me part of the how my character came to be who she is, and I'll start playing her at the point in her life that I can have the most fun with her.Â

Also, once I know the rules, I can also break them. I can play against type if I want to. That's the beauty of it. As Tim Gunn says, and I paraphrase, "Make it work," and "Own it." Authenticity is a word that's been thrown around a lot. I personally think sincerity is far more powerful. I'm sincere in my reasoning, and my choices, and so long as others are sincere with their characters and their efforts, then I'm happy, and I'll be happy to role play with anyone.

Who you are, not what you are [irregular race/nation split]

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes