So I see this referenced a lot, and generally as a bad thing.

>>53710002
The issue is that you made a shitty character.

>>53710066
could you explain?

>>53710002

Because there's more to the game than what your character would do.

Aside from the fact that you should make a character suited to the premise of the game and who will cooperate with the other players, you aren't playing in a vacuum. What's best for the other players and the game as a whole should always be something you consider. It's often a matter of compromise, how you can stay true to your character while also not being disruptive, ensuring your actions add to the experience of the game rather than detract from them. You're all there to have fun, after all.

>>53710002
saying your character is an asshole means you silently agree to not dick over the party unless you guys discussed it before, therefore you are an asshole for saying "it's what my character would do"

>>53710002
If your character would steal from the team. my character would cut off your character's hands. So we have a gentleman's agreement to do neither.

>>53710002
It's not something that needs to be said. If you made a good character and played them to their personality, then people can sort of predict what your character might or might not do. Let's look at an example, say, murdering the king.
>Good idea.
It's in your character's backstory that they hate this specific king, or even nobility in general, or some other reason. Whatever. You've made it known that this is a sort of thing your character would do. You've roleplayed their personality, and possibly even the events leading up to it. When you kill the king, nobody at the table is shocked (although their characters might be) because they can all agree that your character would totally do that. You don't need to justify anything, because it's what's expected of you.
>Bad idea.
Your character has no backstory involving the king. They barely have a backstory at all. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that they would even think about stabbing this guy. So when you do, completely out of the blue, everyone at the table is very rightly confused and possibly angry. There was nothing to suggest that your character might do that. In this case, "it's what my character would do" is a shitty bad justification, because there was nothing to suggest that prior to killing the king.

It's all about the lead up.

>>53710286
Oh, and an addendum. If you make an asshole character, and use them to do asshole things to the other players, you're still an asshole no matter what justification you use.

>>53710089
These are team-based games. If you have made a character that is not a team-player, it is objectively a bad character, because it is not functional in the context of the game.

File: the-point-fred-wolf-1-450x309.jpg (48KB, 450x309px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 450x309px

>>53710346
Man's got a point.

>>53710389
what if my character is morally obligated to disagree with the party, and when they say wtf, my response is "it's what my character would do", and I go on to explain why that's the case. Both in and out of character.

>>53710464
Then dial it back, and explain why joining up with a group of people they disagree with is something they would do in the first place.

'it's what my character would do' is never a good justification. It's literally only every used to double down and remind people that they (for some reason) agreed to let you play an asshole.

>>53710464
If you played your character right, then they'd already know why and you wouldn't need to explain.

Because it's typically an excuse used to fuck over other party members.

>Hey don't steal from your party
>But I'm chaotic neutral it's what my character would do!
>No you can't murder the fighter pvp is not going to happen in this
>But I'm chaotic neutral it's what my character would do!

It's not like you'll ever hear people complain about the lawful good paladin taking time to heal some civilians after a goblin raiding party attacked it, because that isn't being a total cunt to your other players. If you constantly have to use that excuse your character probably shouldn't be in that party

>>53710002
If you made a character that would outright claim more than his share when faced with 3-4 (i assume) similarly strong (i assume) colleagues then your character is just stupid, in the "lacking common awareness" sense. You can make stupid characters, like my wonder sorcerer who was all cha no wis, and act in character, but don't complain when they die early.

>>53710002
Depending on the group it is okay to make an asshole/self serving character, if and only if such a character has meaningful, dare I say, fun interaction, with the party.

One of my players has a tendency of making characters that are often callous, abrasive, self-serving, smug and manipulative.

Yet he is one of my best player, because his actions prompt meaningful reactions, and sometimes even debate, among players.

Working out with him, with every characters, the reasons why he sticks with the party helps a lot. This abrasive mercenary is blunt and callous, but she is devoted to fullfilling her bodyguard duty to some of the party members (and not all, prompting, once again, meaningful interactions). This self-serving arcane trickster may be a dick, but his cowardice and greed motivates him to go forward and put up with the rest of the party.

As a GM, it is my prerogative to make the distinction between "constructive" asshole behavior and toxic one. It depends very much on the player and the rest of the party. But dismissing such behavior outright can make you miss good moments.

Of course, this is assuming you know your players and can guess it will work. If not, don't do it.

It's usually a defense for shitty characters who don't fit into the party.

If the Typical Chaotic Neutral Rogue is killing NPCs and hoarding loot unevenly, but its "How their character acts" why stay in a party with them. Either leave town one day without telling them, or knock them out and bring them to jail for killing civilians.

Or be sensivle and talk to the player and explain that said rogues personality is bringing everyone down and makes the game less fun.

"It's what my character would do" is never good justification for anything, because it's meaningless. You ultimately decide what your character does, not the other way around. If you don't want them to do a certain thing, you don't have to. Justify your choice, and roll with it.

>>53710002
Because you're the one who made the dickhole character in the first place, dickhole. Issues like this shouldn't even be coming up since there should have been rules laid out during character creation to prevent this sort of thing.

>>53710002
What I find funny is these same people get made at the consequences of their actions.

Had a guy walk out in tears the other day after his character got a hand crippled for stealing within the party. A party of thieves, who all trust eachother and he was the newest member.
I mean if you are playing a stupid character it is fine, but most of the time these guys just want everyone to roll with them being retarded.

>>53710002
Because it's never used to justify altruistic, helpful behavior but always selfish dickbaggery. Why is that, you think?

>>53710002
It is a cop out, and here's why

>Player does X terrible thing
>Other players say they dislike it when they do X thing
>Player says 'but its what my character would do'

And from here there's two possibilities

>The character has already done X terrible thing before, so the rest of the party is already fully aware that this is the sort of thing your character would do
>Thus saying it is completely meaningless

Or
>This amis the first time your character has done X terrible thing, and there hasn't been much indication
>Thus this is the first time your character has really been doing what they would do
>Meaning that you didn't tell the group that this was a possibility beforehand, and this is the first chance they've had to say no
>Thus trying to point out that it's what he would do still means nothing, because the rest of the party clearly won't accept him either way

Either you're simply confirming something everyone knows and hates, or you're surprising them with something they hate.

It isn't a reason, it's just a statement of the core problem.

If you ever have to resort to the "it's what my character would do" defense, then you've already fucked up. By using it, you are admitting that you didn't have an actual reason for doing what you did.

Do people really not just kill someone's character for being a traitor? I can't think of the last game I played were someone was an asshole and wasn't murdered and looted in a moment of weakness.

>>53710066
fpbp

>>53711303
Haven't gone to outright killing, but I have cut the hand off a thief who kept trying to do it to me. He complained that I was overreacting but I just pointed out I did the exact same thing to an npc who tried the same thing

>>53711387
Yeah, you were just playing your character : )

>>53710002
"It's what my character would do" is almost always a cover for bad, selfish behavior on the part of the player.

My character would do this thing that involves fucking over the lot of you for my own benefit. Don't blame me, they player choosing to make the character the kind of person who would do this, blame the character that I created and have total control over.

>>53710002
the thing is, its not about forbidding roleplay.
most of the time, people who say that use that sentence to try not to get the consequence of their roleplay

murdering a shop keeper is what your character would do? ok, but the town guard and the party`s paladin are gonna kill your ass, because thats what their character would do.

>>53710464
If you ever need to justify your character's actions when they oppose the agency of the rest of the group, you've already irrepairably fucked up and are better off scraping the character for someone who can actually work with the party.

Think about it like this right, why the fuck would a LG Paladin be in a party of CE fucktards? Why would a pacifist be in a party of unrepentent murder-hobos? Why would a dickass thief fuck over a group of adventurers who are willing to help him grab loot?

The answer, they fucking wouldn't, and "it's what my character would do" is always synonymous with "I thought it'd be funny" or "it seemed like a good idea at the time" which is never a good sign.

>>53710002
If you play an asshole who steals from the party, you're a cunt. Don't be a cunt, OP. I realize you are a raging faggot and it may be hard for you, but don't do it.

It's as if you played football with your friends and passed the ball to the enemy team. Don't. Be. A. Cunt.

>>53710002
Depends on the campaign.

'It's what my character would do' is only ever a response to a situation that is inherently bad. Lets say your playing as a party of thieves and killers. If your character steals from another character, none of the players should be confused as to why, since your all playing horrible people, and therefore no one will ask you to explain your actions.

But in a group dynamic where that isn't the case, a campaign of teamwork and friendly adventure, your character stealing requires explanation. because you obviously wouldn't make a character that doesn't fit the campaign your group is playing... right? Only an asshole or an idiot would do that.

>>53710002
It's because you COULD have made a character for whom "what they would do" is "not be a disruptive asshole."

>>53710098

Yes.

>>53710002

When we roleplay our characters, fundamentally every action boils down to, "It's what my character would do."

Does you character cast spells? Him fireballing the enemy? He's doing it because it's fundamentally what he would do.

It's just a poor excuse to dick people over.

>>53710002
We team up and strip your character naked, take all his stuff, and leave him tied to a tree in a compromising position with "---->" drawn on his buttcheek. We also tell everyone you are a thief, a liar, and that you are not to be trusted.

It's what our characters would do.