Are good guys boring to play?

[SessionZero]

I'm going to utilize the D&D alignment system, flawed and constrictive though it may be, and say my favorite types of characters to play are "Chaotic Good" characters. Llaine, for instance, fights against what she perceives as those guilty of crimes against the citizens of Eorzea. She and her company only pursue murderers, rapists, bandits, etc., and their means of dealing with said criminals is often brutal and bloody. She lusts for battle and blood and is quick to draw her blade against a foe, but she is not a fan of wanton destruction, nor will she ever go berserker against an innocent. 

 

When I played SWTOR, though, I did enjoy playing as a Chaotic Neutral smuggler. Mukah never stepped over the line into Sith-style villainy, and she refused to outright work for the Empire, but she often and willingly engaged in smuggling, drug running, weapons running, assassinations, and the like. She was a criminal, but a halfway honorable criminal, and she was one of the most fun characters I've ever played.

[Magellan]

 

And no, not let's lay on the faults/weaknesses and be nitty-gritty about it. That's past realism on terms of character development and borderlines what I like to call the: "Grim-Dark" factor, as how Warhammer 40K is Grim-Dark (They over use Grim and Dark so much).

 

This

 

I like a balance. I like to interject a healthy dose of humor and fun mischief into my RP to counterbalance all the grim-dark. And lately, all my hero was getting was grim dark

 

@ Faye: I've considered and shall continue to do so! Though as stated am very happy in my current home!

 

@ Session: I run the gamut from true neutral to lawful good, but neutral good is my favorite

 

@ All: thank you all for the input! I read everyone's responses, and appreciate the time and viewpoints that have been shared up to this point

[Rakoh]

Good characters aren't boring to RP. There are no boring character alignments, only bad writers and roleplayers.

 

Reiko is definitely in the Chaotic Good camp, and while she most definitely has some very violent tendencies, she does try to do the right thing and act heroic at the end of the day. She is also pretty neurotic and nervous about how people will think of her and tries to stay on her best behaviour.

 

That said, she is rather quick to anger over the smallest of slights, and has a vengeful streak three-miles-wide towards those who personally wrong her (or trolls her too much like with her cousin Daiyumi); that said, she WILL forgive (and even befriend) you after she has exacted vengeance by pounding you into the ground with her Lightning Spells.

 

In SWTOR my Sith was Lightsided and while she did plenty of morally gray things, wasn't outright evil due to at least trying to be good (which is hard with the Dark Council watching). Her master was also pretty neutral as well.

 

That said Grimdark RP does bore me and put me off a lot. I don't get the obsession with it, and the drama it always causes also puts me off a lot.

[K'dath]

I don't see good guys being boring to play, what I do see though is when a character becomes a two dimensional being or worse, an one dimensional icon. Everyone has faults and everyone has strengths. I like to see a mix of both.

 

 

And no, not let's lay on the faults/weaknesses and be nitty-gritty about it. That's past realism on terms of character development and borderlines what I like to call the: "Grim-Dark" factor, as how Warhammer 40K is Grim-Dark (They over use Grim and Dark so much).

 

Fleshed out characters, character growth and realistic expectations are something I like. As for the last bit, realistic expectations, can be anything. I know, almost a paradox, but I meant as in how the character perceives. Saving the day or trying to become a god could be considered a realistic expectation if it fits the character.

"One-dimensionality exists only in theory as a mathematical value." Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

I completely agree with what you're saying though. Warhammer, for the great influence it's had on our expectations of world building in sci-fi/fantasy, is a crap sack world where there is no reason to hope for anything and nothing ever does get better. People's perception of what is 'normal' has been skewed by the glorification of over the top anti-heroes, where the grit is piled on so thick you could use them as sandbags. It's just as unrealistic as the fantastic world where the good guys are always right, just, and win in the face of overwhelming odds.

 

Morality is subjective. Realism... not so much.

[Lost River]

Now now, in writing terms, character dimension is classified by three points; but you're right about the mathematical theory. :3

 

English is so much fun, using words with meaning for something else. No wonder it took me so damn long to learn it.

 

LOL

 

 

I prefer the sea of gray with shining beacons and the dark spots all in one. Variety is the spice of life.

[Fen]

My main since I played swtor exclusively has been Fen (Fen'ris in swtor, Fenenoix here). The current version of Fen is Neutral Good with chaotic leanings... not quite independent enough to be Chaotic, but still stubborn in his individuality.

 

And he is so... so... so much fun to play. He's quirky, he's stubborn, he's impulsive, he's snarky... and that's what a lot of people miss abut good characters. They equate "good" with "shallow," as if the only defining characteristic of a character is "Oh, he's a good guy." No! Good guys are (or should be) as multi-dimensional as any neutral or evil character!

 

Look at fiction: You have the prudent but sarcastic Obi-Wan, you have the naive but protective Alphonse Elric, heck, you have the Doctor. People assume that to be a good character, that's the only thing about them: they're good, and they do good stuff. Poof. Character done. But no, that isn't true at all.

 

/endrant

[Magellan]

Omgosh the Doctor... why did I not think of that? That's a great example =)

[Michikyou]

I;ve found similar issues and not due to the fact that people are ''playing' good characters but more so the fact that their actions are not 'good' but are for the 'good' of all peoples in the long run.

 

Traits I do not classify with good characters:

• Manipulative
  
• Violent
  
• Has Ulterior motives.
  
• Selfish
  
• Mercenary Attitude towards tasks.
  

 

I made a selfless character, whom was raised in a society where he was essentially there to just HELP people, he finds being selfish is a hard thing and due to his nature he is often cast aside by most who encounter him as they assume he has 'ulterior motives'. I find it sickening that the community doesn't even precieve the chance of there being characters who are not selfish.

[Magellan]

I find it sickening that the community doesn't even precieve the chance of there being characters who are not selfish.

 

I have been told on quite a few occassions that selfless or genuinely nice people without ulterior motives is not realistic, which I've never understood.

 

Of course, I've been told this often in real life, too, because I'm generally a selfless person, and that's made even less sense

[Faye]

I find it sickening that the community doesn't even precieve the chance of there being characters who are not selfish.

 

I have been told on quite a few occassions that selfless or genuinely nice people without ulterior motives is not realistic, which I've never understood.

 

Of course, I've been told this often in real life, too, because I'm generally a selfless person, and that's made even less sense

 

This. This is what I mentioned earlier People are so bent on not playing the cliched "good guy" that the character trope has almost ceased to exist in RP. It's really disheartening to be told that genuinely kind and selfless characters are "one-dimensional" or "unrealistic," even if they have a healthy amount of flaws, simply because they remain "good." It just seems really cynical and incorrect to me.

[Rakoh]

I find it sickening that the community doesn't even precieve the chance of there being characters who are not selfish.

 

I have been told on quite a few occassions that selfless or genuinely nice people without ulterior motives is not realistic, which I've never understood.

 

Of course, I've been told this often in real life, too, because I'm generally a selfless person, and that's made even less sense

 

Funny you should mention that. I once played an unambiguously good and purely selfless character in an FF Forum Roleplay and she ended up being one of the most popular characters. She had her quirks, negatives and fault sure but that character was never actually called boring.

[Chisae]

I've always found the alignment system rather stilted... it's too black and white, when life is more chaotic good/evil with maybe a bit of neutral tossed in to confuse people.

 

People look at the alignment system and see True Good as being an untouchable saint, which is how I have always thought they were represented. You don't drink, don't swear, don't bang hookers (lol), you don't take rewards for good deeds and on and on and all. It's more of a caricature of good than anything else. Just like True Evil has always been portrayed as moustache-twirling men in tophats and black capes... or raspy robotic voices with a fetish for choking people.

 

In that sense, both sides of the coin are boring and unimaginative. But if you allow the pure-as-the-driven-snow True Good person to have something... broken with them, like they have a psychological flaw, or they secretly like poking nymphs (in *that* way) at night... in barns; then you have a more interesting character. Vader's back story in the prequels made him an interesting villain, instead of the rather 2D villain he was in the original trilogy. He had a spark of good in him smoldering away for 20 years (?) that ultimately led him to save his son in ROTJ.

 

tl;dr: True Good - generic and boring; true evil - never played well enough and also generic and boring.

[Faye]

I've always found the alignment system rather stilted... it's too black and white, when life is more chaotic good/evil with maybe a bit of neutral tossed in to confuse people.

 

People look at the alignment system and see True Good as being an untouchable saint, which is how I have always thought they were represented. You don't drink, don't swear, don't bang hookers (lol), you don't take rewards for good deeds and on and on and all. It's more of a caricature of good than anything else. Just like True Evil has always been portrayed as moustache-twirling men in tophats and black capes... or raspy robotic voices with a fetish for choking people.

 

In that sense, both sides of the coin are boring and unimaginative. But if you allow the pure-as-the-driven-snow True Good person to have something... broken with them, like they have a psychological flaw, or they secretly like poking nymphs (in *that* way) at night... in barns; then you have a more interesting character. Vader's back story in the prequels made him an interesting villain, instead of the rather 2D villain he was in the original trilogy. He had a spark of good in him smoldering away for 20 years (?) that ultimately led him to save his son in ROTJ.

 

tl;dr: True Good - generic and boring; true evil - never played well enough and also generic and boring.

 

All of the alignments are left, at least in some degree, to individual interpretation. Even if you go exactly by the standards established in D&D, they vary (sometimes considerably so) in each edition of the game. It's assumed that most people, in the D&D world as well as real life, are neutral--usually true neutral, but of course, those with criminal or delinquent tendencies lean more to chaotic neutral and the straight-shooting, hardcore law-abiding citizens toward lawful neutral. 

 

But the alignments don't have to be black and white--after all, nothing in life is. I think everyone has their own idea what is chaotic good, lawful evil, etc., even if they are all loosely similar definitions, hence why people like to debate which alignment certain characters would fall under. 

 

And, of course, no character must constantly follow their alignment every moment of their life. Evil can have their moments of kindness toward those they care for, good can act out of line when they've been pushed too far and hit rock bottom, etc. Despite having an "alignment," characters still have moods, and outside factors will influence their feelings and actions. Just as we "act out of character" sometimes in real life, so can our characters.

 

The alignment system can be pretty rigid if you go exactly by-the-book, but I think it's meant to give some leeway (at least, it certainly works better if it does, and I think that's how most of us use it). I know that, in regard to my character Faye, for example, I consider her "lawful neutral." I didn't make her to be lawful neutral and I don't alter her actions to fit the description of lawful neutral--I just believe that lawful neutral best fits with her thoughts, morals, and her usual pattern of behavior.

[LiadansWhisper]

It isn't until we see the Darkness that we notice how brightly the Light shines defiantly into it.

 

What I mean by saying this is that Good is only really, truly Good when there's Evil to struggle against.  Because otherwise, it's just you derping around, being you.

 

The problem is, people have different ideas of what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "evil."  Even worse, some people can't really differentiate between what they know In Character and what they know Out of Character.

 

"Hey, that guy is wearing all black!  He must be EVIL!"

 

Yeah, I know it sounds silly, but that's actually happened...

 

Some people think that being "Good" means being a law-abiding straight arrow-type who is completely intolerant of the weaknesses and mistakes of others.  Other people think that "Good" means being completely understanding and forgiving of less perfect people, no matter what they do or how badly they abuse this.

 

Neither of those are "wrong," per se, but people get really attached to their idea of what "Good" is and they seem to react rather...strongly...to anyone who doesn't fit into their convenient, neat little box of what "good" is.

 

So if you don't fit what they define as "what Good should be," they get upset, and will either tell you to your face that you're a bad player or "doin' it wrong," or they'll tell other people that behind your back.  You're "judgmental" or you're "wishy-washy."  It's very silly.

 

Honestly, you can't win.  Some people think playing "good" is boring.  Others think that only they can play it correctly.  In the end, you should play what makes you happy.  I am not happy playing villainous characters (mainly because I just plain suck at it), so I don't.  I enjoy playing basically good characters, so that's what I generally play (with the occasional sidequest into murderous Shevarashi territory in D&D >.>).

 

Just remember that as long as everyone is having fun, you're doin' it right!

[Karaan]

I don't think playing good character is boring too, since most of my character are good. But I'm always a little itchy when  it comes to the True Good and Evil thing. Like we all know, nothing is really black and white in our world (and if you see the world like that...well...) so I like to put that inside every character I made.

 

Example: One of my favorite rp character is my priest Victor-Henri Nolan (from a D&D game). He is good but he isn't the paladin save everyone good. I mean he know for the good and the law of his region that sacrifice must be made. HE did accept to let hundred of people die so he could save thousand of more (he will always see the world as all not as one person)

 

 

So that is why most of my good character are mostly Lawful Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, they will go toward the good and not the evil but something sacrifice or action must be done to save people that will stain your will. Like Faye said: Even the evil good be kind toward someone he likes or the good if push to his limit will act ruthlessly toward others

[Illira]

I've found similar issues and not due to the fact that people are ''playing' good characters but more so the fact that their actions are not 'good' but are for the 'good' of all peoples in the long run.

This is an important distinguishment to make, although I would argue that on its face, being for the "'good' of all peoples in the long run" isn't not (hate to use a double negative here...) "not good". Its simply a difference of perspective and action, but the intention is there. Its just simply not a black and white matter. Though I understand what you are trying to say. 

 

But its the classic difference between for the good of the "majority/all" or for the "few". Do you choose to save your close companions? Or save the unnamed masses? And even then the method used to achieve the goal may be cross over that moral lines for the greater good. In which case, its an interesting study between whether that character truly has crossed over that moral boundary and lost sight of their original goal? They sacrificed their own 'soul' for the sake of the greater good? Or is it simply a difference of perspective?

 

In most cases morality is a question, not a definition. And events and experiences can change individuals to shift their viewpoint.

 

I made a selfless character, whom was raised in a society where he was essentially there to just HELP people, he finds being selfish is a hard thing and due to his nature he is often cast aside by most who encounter him as they assume he has 'ulterior motives'. I find it sickening that the community doesn't even perceive the chance of there being characters who are not selfish.

Was it that he was being pushed aside for OOC reasons? Or IC reasons? The former really isn't excusable, but the later is well... IC, and shouldn't be a problem. Though its kind of... fishy if characters are all to paranoid to be able to trust anyone. Not in ARR, but one of my primary RP characters was a pretty genuinely /nice-guy/. I never had the sort of issue that you were describing. Occasionally, yes, a character might be wary of him, or question his motives for getting involved. 

 

It might also be prudent to discuss that being /completely/ selfless isn't necessarily either a good or achievable thing to be. Its simply a matter of degrees. Everyone has internal motivations for doing something, and deep down how that action affects themselves. Another character of mine, outwardly is incredibly selfless, simply spending her life offering mercy and what peace she can to others. But ultimately, she does it for entirely selfish reasons. She does it because she clings to that purpouse to keep herself sane and functioning. She needs her charity cases as much as they need her. Such is an example of someone who does -good- in the world, but whom I would not consider to be a -good- person. 

 

I've probably gone a wee bit off topic... but it does sound like the OP has a pretty defined idea of what sort of RP they are looking and I would second the suggestion that they may want to consider trying to start up their own LS organizational RP. Elsewise... good-luck in finding one! When looking around it'll be important to keep dig below the surface advertisement to see the reality of the RP group's motivations, ICly and OOCly.

[Tobias Nightbringer]

So I turn to you, the community to ask: are heroes boring to play?

 

Nope

 

Anyone else here enjoy playing these characters?

 

Yes.

 

Everything else is nuance.

[Brave]

Geez what a great thread!

 

I have this issue from time to time when playing with other people too but as I've role-played more I've noticed that you need to have a diverse mix.  The whole saying that "A hero is only as good as his villain" is totally true.  Many of the characters you described have a "foil" in the group that helps exemplify just how heroic a person is.

 

Another thing I'd like to point out is many of the same feelings your having now about feeling like there aren't enough good people in the world are felt by these characters as they go through the story.

 

Parn from record of Lodoss war is viewed as naive.

Kenichi from Histories Mightiest disciple is also viewed as naive.

Shiro from Fate Stay Night is often having his ideals hammered into him as ridiculous

Snow Villiers is often viewed as an idiot for wanting to be the hero who saves the day.

 

It's hard to be good.  It SHOULD be hard to be good.  (Even when an 'anti hero' does something bad for the sake of good, you'll see conflict over if he did the right thing)

 

I know I'm echoing a lot of the points already made, but I just want to encourage you.  A story with a wide variety of people to interact with is a good thing.  When you do find people who have similar beliefs or ideals to your own, RP with them and become friends.  When you have conflict with others over how to do things, that's kinda normal, and expected.

 

Anyway, great thread.  this was a fun read.

[Lament]

It's impossible to be truly selfless if you consider selflessness to be acting strictly for the sake of others - because really, a kind person with no ulterior motive enjoys doing kindness for the sake of kindness. So it is for themselves as much as it is for others. Ultimately, people are driven by what makes them happy, even if that happiness comes from making other people happy too.

 

It's even possible to be selfish while acting selfless. If you constantly throw yourself at danger to fight evil and be a hero, you could be selfish in the eyes of people who care about you - who would much rather have someone else possibly die fighting evil than you.

 

Even the best of actions with the best of intentions can come with negative (selfish, cruel, evil) consequences. In Suikoden 2, a nation cleverly takes advantage of another's kindness by making said kindness turn against them - they release a massive amount of war prisoners, which a certain city readily takes in... and then they lay siege to the city and wait. With the increased population, the city's own supplies drain fast, and they eventually have to surrender, without a battle ever needing to happen.

 

Taking in the refugees was the good thing to do, but ultimately it led to the city's inhabitants also being made war prisoners.

 

I think it's extremely fun to play good guys, but I prefer the realistic approach to it. I like making them learn that good is relative and that their actions won't always be taken as good, or always have the intended result. It's really interesting, to me, to see good characters - who are, legitimately, trying to do the right thing - struggle with the notion that nothing is as black and white as they thought.

[Chisae]

In otherwords: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[T'shina]

I will say first, I did not read the rest of the posts. But I have an answer to the question at hand!

 

It isn't that playing a good guy is boring. I love playing the good guy personally because the good guy has many trials to overcome and most of all have many personal challenges to overcome with each enemy they face.

 

It isn't that it is boring at all but more so it is more challenging.

 

A bad guy or villain is actually quite simple to play. You do things for your own good. For power or control. This can also extend to the "neutral" characters who truly only are out for self gain but can be seen as villains because it could affect a community negatively as a whole.

 

A good guy must continue to remain true to themselves and their morals. Where it would be so simple to kill the opposition, someone who is Good would not as they would show mercy. They would give them a second, third, or even fourth chance. They must continue to keep to the moral compass or even overcome their own weaknesses to continue to do for the greater good. This is by all means, much more difficult to achieve that if you play a villain.

 

Thus, there is a harder time to keep to a characters morals because there is more opposition. You'll find more villains in an RP world than you will heroes.

[Karaan]

In otherwords: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That is quite the right way to say it

[DAISHI]

No. Bad roleplayers are boring to RP with.

[Faye]

I will say first, I did not read the rest of the posts. But I have an answer to the question at hand!

 

It isn't that playing a good guy is boring. I love playing the good guy personally because the good guy has many trials to overcome and most of all have many personal challenges to overcome with each enemy they face.

 

It isn't that it is boring at all but more so it is more challenging.

 

A bad guy or villain is actually quite simple to play. You do things for your own good. For power or control. This can also extend to the "neutral" characters who truly only are out for self gain but can be seen as villains because it could affect a community negatively as a whole.

 

A good guy must continue to remain true to themselves and their morals. Where it would be so simple to kill the opposition, someone who is Good would not as they would show mercy. They would give them a second, third, or even fourth chance. They must continue to keep to the moral compass or even overcome their own weaknesses to continue to do for the greater good. This is by all means, much more difficult to achieve that if you play a villain.

 

Thus, there is a harder time to keep to a characters morals because there is more opposition. You'll find more villains in an RP world than you will heroes.

 

My favorite alignment to play is lawful evil. Therefore, I can't bring myself to agree with this at all. Even evil characters and villains (because not all antagonists need be evil) still have their own moral codes. Most are doing whatever they do for some grander scheme, not a simple "I do what I want so screw everyone else." Some still have their own set of rules, be it strict or no. 

 

It's more difficult, I think, to have a character selfish enough to be called "evil," yet still have to make her adhere to a certain code of conduct than it is to have a "good" character who sticks to her guns. Honestly, I find "true evil" the most difficult to play for the opposite reason--I have very strong morals in real life and consider myself a pretty decent person, so to play a character with no morals and no regard for others is far out of my comfort zone.

[Sin]

I will say first, I did not read the rest of the posts. But I have an answer to the question at hand!

 

It isn't that playing a good guy is boring. I love playing the good guy personally because the good guy has many trials to overcome and most of all have many personal challenges to overcome with each enemy they face.

 

It isn't that it is boring at all but more so it is more challenging.

 

A bad guy or villain is actually quite simple to play. You do things for your own good. For power or control. This can also extend to the "neutral" characters who truly only are out for self gain but can be seen as villains because it could affect a community negatively as a whole.

 

A good guy must continue to remain true to themselves and their morals. Where it would be so simple to kill the opposition, someone who is Good would not as they would show mercy. They would give them a second, third, or even fourth chance. They must continue to keep to the moral compass or even overcome their own weaknesses to continue to do for the greater good. This is by all means, much more difficult to achieve that if you play a villain.

 

Thus, there is a harder time to keep to a characters morals because there is more opposition. You'll find more villains in an RP world than you will heroes.

 

My favorite alignment to play is lawful evil. Therefore, I can't bring myself to agree with this at all. Even evil characters and villains (because not all antagonists need be evil) still have their own moral codes. Most are doing whatever they do for some grander scheme, not a simple "I do what I want so screw everyone else." Some still have their own set of rules, be it strict or no. 

 

It's more difficult, I think, to have a character selfish enough to be called "evil," yet still have to make her adhere to a certain code of conduct than it is to have a "good" character who sticks to her guns. Honestly, I find "true evil" the most difficult to play for the opposite reason--I have very strong morals in real life and consider myself a pretty decent person, so to play a character with no morals and no regard for others is far out of my comfort zone.

 I agree with Faye in that I don't think evil or good characters are simple or boring.

 

In my opinion, alignment is one piece of a bigger issue.

 

I think the main thing is that one dimensional characters are boring. All good, will do good no matter what just because good is good. Boring. Similarly, evil just because evil is cool and halloween is cool and witches, and I have no reason to be mean but I will be anyway. Boring.

 

Why is your character so good? Why are they so evil? If you can flesh that out and make that interesting, then it doesn't matter what alignment you choose. Your character will be interesting, and fun to roleplay with.

 

Also, I'm of the believe that there is good in all evil and a little evil in all good. Every villain something they truly care and love, every hero something they're selfish about.