That's what my character would do isn't an excuse because you're the one who came up with that character.

3 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

That's what my character would do isn't an excuse because you're the one who came up with that character.

I agree that it's never an excuse for crappy/antagonistic behavior, especially if that behavior constitutes harassment of the other players, directly or indirectly.

About the only instance of "that's what my character would do" that to me at least is acceptable is the character undertaking a major self-sacrificial action. Because let's be honest here, when the chips are truly down and push comes to shove, most people aren't going to have it in them to step up and make the big sacrifice play that's going to very likely result in going to an early grave by way of a closed casket funeral. To say nothing of many players (myself included) getting very attached to their characters, especially if they've been paying that character for several months or even years. Pulling an Obi-Wan or Tony Stark moment and letting that beloved character exit play permanently can be a big deal; Gandalf doesn't count because while he did make the sacrifice play against the Balrog, he also got to come back even more powerful than he'd been previously (if you're big on the lore, then you know it was less "came back stronger" and more "came back with fewer restrictions on his power" given what Gandalf and the rest of the Wizards actually were).

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

That first part is often the crux of the problem with evil PCs in any campaign or setting, is that far more often than not, the players in question go more for the "chaotic stupid" or "chaotic *****hat" with the weak explanation/excuse of "that's what my character would do!"

That last sentence regarding group disagreements is also true, but by the same token if one of the evil (or even "good") characters does some action that seriously upsets or offends other players, that's not exactly kosher. Folks in an RPG group are all there to have fun, but that doesn't mean that one person's fun has to come before the expense of others of the group. For instance, the subject of child abuse is a very delicate one for folks, especially those who have survived it and sense gotten out of those horrid situations. So the player of an evil PC who casually terrifies a child before maiming them "just because" or "it's what my character would do!" shouldn't get carte blanche, and the player who survived a physically abusive childhood shouldn't be told "don't bring your personal hang-ups into the game!" on the basis of character/player separation.

It's a tight rope, and one best navigated by having an open discussion during the session zero of what sort of "evil" behaviors are and aren't tolerated in the group, as each group is going to have their own tolerances for what is and isn't acceptable. Some groups might be A-Okay with senseless and/or accidental homicides of innocent bystanders, but if you hurt a cute defenseless animal, the other players will go all John Wick on you.

The X card system might be a really good idea for a game like this.

SW already has mutilation, burning alive, child slavery, mass child murder, genocide in its DNA. It's easy to warp it into an opportunity for harassment through excessively detailed descriptions of these acts, for example. So yeah, x-card good.

On 8/7/2019 at 1:05 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

That first part is often the crux of the problem with evil PCs in any campaign or setting, is that far more often than not, the players in question go more for the "chaotic stupid" or "chaotic *****hat" with the weak explanation/excuse of "that's what my character would do!"

That last sentence regarding group disagreements is also true, but by the same token if one of the evil (or even "good") characters does some action that seriously upsets or offends other players, that's not exactly kosher. Folks in an RPG group are all there to have fun, but that doesn't mean that one person's fun has to come before the expense of others of the group. For instance, the subject of child abuse is a very delicate one for folks, especially those who have survived it and sense gotten out of those horrid situations. So the player of an evil PC who casually terrifies a child before maiming them "just because" or "it's what my character would do!" shouldn't get carte blanche, and the player who survived a physically abusive childhood shouldn't be told "don't bring your personal hang-ups into the game!" on the basis of character/player separation.

It's a tight rope, and one best navigated by having an open discussion during the session zero of what sort of "evil" behaviors are and aren't tolerated in the group, as each group is going to have their own tolerances for what is and isn't acceptable. Some groups might be A-Okay with senseless and/or accidental homicides of innocent bystanders, but if you hurt a cute defenseless animal, the other players will go all John Wick on you.

At the end of the day, most of this stuff boils down to "don't be a ****/asshat". An RPG is a collaborative storytelling game where all the participants typically are there to have fun.

If someone has personal issues concerning particular things, it's something that has to be dealt with somehow. Otherwise the game stops being fun, and character disagreements can spill over into player disagreements.

And I agree. "But it's what my character would do" is only VERY rarely an argument for a character to behave in a way that ruins the other participants fun.