Where is the line between Acceptable IC and unacceptable OOC?

[druid91]

So, this happens a lot, I expect. The traditional one player taking actions that are disruptive or hurtful, with the reasoning being given that "It's what my character would do!" Now I'm not talking about when that's a flimsy excuse, but rather when they actually do have an established character with a semi-set personality.

But where does "That sucks, but you have to follow the character." End and "Dude, that's not cool that you made a character like that." begin?

[Maglubiyet]

Pretty much in the character design phase. I've been burned by this a few times as a GM so I'm pretty vigilant about intercepting problem PC's before they ever step foot in the game world.

[Flickerdart]

When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

[Keltest]

When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

Indeed. If your character has to make an OOC decision in order to not be completely disruptive, so be it.

[dream]

So, this happens a lot, I expect. The traditional one player taking actions that are disruptive or hurtful, with the reasoning being given that "It's what my character would do!" Now I'm not talking about when that's a flimsy excuse, but rather when they actually do have an established character with a semi-set personality.

But where does "That sucks, but you have to follow the character." End and "Dude, that's not cool that you made a character like that." begin?

Prior to everything the group should have a session to establish everyone's expectations. What's ok & what's not ok. What's expected of players & what's expected of the GM. All the details of standards of player & PC behavior should be handled with "Session Zero".

[Ruslan]

When you're part of a group, you owe them to make a character that can play a game with the group, and enhance, rather than detract from, everyone's enjoyment. I accept that there will be frictions and disagreements sometimes, and this can be a healthy part of the game, but if you find people rolling eyes at your "this is what my character would do" too often, then you made a poorly fitting character, and that's on you.

[veti]

When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is twofold. First, "whether everyone else is having fun, and whether doing X would ruin or enhance their experience" is often a very hard thing to gauge. That goes even for a highly experienced player or DM, and my experience - combined with everything I've read on this board - suggests that people faced with making that call and nothing more substantial on which to base it - will make it wrong, to a very round approximation, roughly 50% of the time.

Second, at the point we're discussing now, the game has already stopped being fun for at least one player - the one who's been put in this untenable position. So someone has already fornicated with that particular lapdog. How does this one player make the call that s/he should be the one to back down and martyr their characterisation in the interests of everyone else's "fun"?

And, although this may be high heresy hereabouts: "fun" is not the be-all and end-all of gaming. It's a social thing, it allows friends to explore life and philosophy in ways that aren't normally possible - and if some people at the table think that's not worthwhile because it's "not fun", maybe they're the ones in the wrong hobby. Or, at least, the wrong group.

[dream]

When the game stops being fun for others at your table. Even if it's "the only thing my character could possibly do in this situation," any IC action is only acceptable when it's not ruining the game for everyone else.

+1 this. When the game stops being fun, people stop playing.

[Vitruviansquid]

I believe this maxim doesn't get enough credit in tabletop role playing games:

"Laws don't rule, people rule."

There's always a lot of different factors like what game you're playing, what your pre-existing relationship with the other people at your table are, so on, and so forth. And then there's so much room for compromise, for negotiation, for this and that.

Use your instinct.

[Flickerdart]

The trouble with that line of reasoning is twofold. First, "whether everyone else is having fun, and whether doing X would ruin or enhance their experience" is often a very hard thing to gauge. That goes even for a highly experienced player or DM, and my experience - combined with everything I've read on this board - suggests that people faced with making that call and nothing more substantial on which to base it - will make it wrong, to a very round approximation, roughly 50% of the time.

Err on the side of caution - if you suspect it might screw things up for other people, don't do it. Or you can always ask.

Second, at the point we're discussing now, the game has already stopped being fun for at least one player - the one who's been put in this untenable position. So someone has already fornicated with that particular lapdog. How does this one player make the call that s/he should be the one to back down and martyr their characterisation in the interests of everyone else's "fun"?

Not being able to do the thing you think your character would do isn't the same as the game not being fun. Knowing when to stop making everything about you is more than just good player etiquette - it's a requirement for being an adult.

And, although this may be high heresy hereabouts: "fun" is not the be-all and end-all of gaming. It's a social thing, it allows friends to explore life and philosophy in ways that aren't normally possible - and if some people at the table think that's not worthwhile because it's "not fun", maybe they're the ones in the wrong hobby. Or, at least, the wrong group.

If you want to "explore life and philosophy" in a way that's (to quote the OP) disruptive and hurtful to people, go write a book.

[Hawkstar]

This really is an issue that pops up a lot, and there really isn't a good answer without context.

[nedz]

This can be remedied with character development, and I'm not talking about mechanics. Some players may need some prompting to actually have their character learn from previous events and change their behaviour. The problem occurs when players are inflexible about their characters.

[Hawkstar]

Pretty much in the character design phase. I've been burned by this a few times as a GM so I'm pretty vigilant about intercepting problem PC's before they ever step foot in the game world.

Sometimes, though, these sorts of problems don't pop up until WAY late in the game, after characterization may have drifted gradually from the pitched concept. An example I can think of would be, in the middle of a dungeon crawl, an honor-obsessed Samurai-style character might, at a plot-critical point in the story, decides to charge ahead for the BBEG, consequences be damned, instead of wait for the party rogue to trap-sweep ahead of him, which then causes the rest of the party problems as they either try to protect said Samurai, or have to deal with having a wounded front-line fighter for the big finale fight. (Yes, I'm using the exact same example of problematic "It's what my character would do!" behavior from someone who preached "Do something different!")

This can be remedied with character development, and I'm not talking about mechanics. Some players may need some prompting to actually have their character learn from previous events and change their behaviour. The problem occurs when players are inflexible about their characters.

This is not entirely true. The "Do something disruptive vs. Completely Break Character" can pop up at any point in a character arc.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

It depends on exactly how set that personality is, and exactly how much that player cares about RP.

If the player is more casual about the RP part of the game and the feeling of playing a genuine character isn't a big deal to them, tell them to change their character a bit. Call it spontaneous character growth, and keep things going so they stay fun. (Note: I might say this like I consider it the "bad" way to play, but I don't; I actually consider it objectively superior to my own preferences, but sadly "preferences" and "weighing objective benefits against one another" don't mix.)

If the player is like me, who needs a character they can really feel connected to in order to have fun and who strives to let the character grow, act, and develop organically, then it gets harder. I can tell you what I would do in that situation; I'd take the action that doesn't disrupt the game, and then, assuming the game isn't highly-lethal enough that a "mistake" (wink wink nudge nudge) on my part would let me remove the character in a non-contrived way, I'd ask the DM to contrive a scenario to perma-kill my character so that I could bring in a new one without the prior character's life weighing on my mind. But this solution is not one that most players with my preferences would be okay with, because it requires unceremoniously and willingly severing a bond to a character you've put a lot of work into.

The best starting point is to make a character that wouldn't take disruptive actions in any scenario you can think of, but despite how popular it is to laugh about how PCs throw wrenches in every plan, DMs just as often throw things your way that are so totally unexpected that you can't even really adapt. (The difference is, when a DM does it, everyone on the internet tells them it's great work, while if the PCs do it, everyone on the internet says they're a problem player who should be booted. ) If this puts you in a situation where your only in-character action would be disruptive, what are you supposed to do?

I'm going to be perfectly honest here. I thought about this while typing my answer, and then after the previous paragraph I walked away from the computer for thirty minutes to think about it. After that, there's only one thing I can say with any certainty: There is no fantastic solution to this problem, there are only ones ranging from "I think I can live with that if you buy me ice cream after" to "slightly better than decent."

The best option I could think of is, if you see a situation like this coming and your DM's relationship with the group isn't utterly adversarial, to pass your DM a note asking him to give you a convenient out; whether this is in a conventional form, or a more forced scenario, it's not especially important as long as it solves the problem without your character having to make a different choice.

If he is totally adversarial and opposed to changing his game to help you have more fun... Find a different DM, also his game deserves to be ruined, so disrupt away.

In the more likely scenario that the situation is simply sprung upon you and it's "act now or forever hold your peace," try to find an in-character compromise. If the other PCs know your character's reason for wanting to perform said disruptive action, pass one of them a note, saying that they notice your character acting strangely and are able to realize why, and that they should find a way to restrain you. (Don't give them any subtle "my character glances with seething rage at X" or anything, be straightforward; "by her shift in stance and the look in her eyes, you can tell my character is about to try to kill that person we really need, so find a way to restrain me.") Great RP regarding their conflict over the restraint ensues, which is rarely a bad thing.

That works best if it's simply that your character needs to not take an action, rather than they have to take an action but the only action they would take is the decidedly wrong one. Not all things in life work out so well. What if your character has to agree to something they'd never agree to, under threat of the rest of the party dying? Assuming your character isn't the "I'll do it just to keep the others alive" type, you're now in a pickle; if you do X action, you'll break character, often severely if it's really something you'd consider sacrificing the party for, but if you don't, the campaign is likely over, and more importantly you'll likely severely detract from the fun of the other players. First, make sure the situation itself is justified. If it's the DM being a crappy person to you and the other players by giving you a no-win choice and taking all the options away from the other players arbitrarily, see above: "Find a new DM." If it's somehow justified, do still consider the "talk to your DM" option from earlier, only in this case up-front, asking for a retcon to a situation that doesn't require choosing between making the game less fun for everyone else or making the game a whole lot less fun for yourself.

If none of that works, I guess it's time to start considering my "do action, don't disrupt game, kill character at first opportunity" idea. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful, but there's only so much you can do when you're playing a mid-level rogue and the DM is steadfast about having put the rest of the party in a Forcecage in the middle of a cursed volcano, whose slow but steady lava rise can only be halted by sacrificing the one item your character cares about more than the party and the town below. (Real situation, I already told you what I did. The DM was not pleased, said "I was trying to give you a character growth moment, not have your character turn into a walking vegetable who was looking to remove itself from reality." My response was to apologize for getting so engrossed in his campaign world, which left him partially speechless but also ended up helping us to understand each other better as player and DM. Your mileage may vary.)

Sorry I couldn't give you a better answer. This is a rather hard question for somebody like me, truth be told.

[Maglubiyet]

Sometimes, though, these sorts of problems don't pop up until WAY late in the game, after characterization may have drifted gradually from the pitched concept.

True, but an ounce of prevention and all that.

I haven't had any problems like that for a while, at least not as GM. I've seen it as a player in the disfunctional games I seem to keep joining of late.

[Pex]

My problem was I was in a 5E game where the majority of the players were such Jerks with an enabling DM. I was the one who left. It's all nice to say "I'm only doing what my character would do" is a terrible excuse to behave poorly and that player should choose differently, but when it's almost everyone at the table such an admonition will not work.

[veti]

Err on the side of caution - if you suspect it might screw things up for other people, don't do it. Or you can always ask.

Unless you're talking about a literally life-or-death situation, such as driving a car, "err on the side of caution" is usually terrible advice. It is so here. RPGs give you the opportunity to take "risks" in a way that isn't really "risky" at all - that's a large part of the point. And if you never take those risks, neither you nor anyone else will ever experience anything new.

Not being able to do the thing you think your character would do isn't the same as the game not being fun. Knowing when to stop making everything about you is more than just good player etiquette - it's a requirement for being an adult.

Another "requirement for being an adult" is "standing up for yourself and not relying on others to protect you all the time". Another is "making your own decisions, taking due consideration of the herd but not automatically deferring to them".

If you want to "explore life and philosophy" in a way that's (to quote the OP) disruptive and hurtful to people, go write a book.

Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.

So, "disruptive and hurtful" to what? To the game or the plot? Sure you can disrupt and hurt that, but that's an imaginary construct, and as such, disposable. Sure, it might represent years of time invested by some participants; but if it's so fragile that you can shatter it with one bad decision, that suggests it's so flawed that they're frankly better off starting over anyway. To be "disruptive and hurtful" to people you'd have to go a whole huge leap further.

If you choose to put my character in a position of having to act against their established nature, interests and characterisation in order for you to "have fun", and I refuse to have my character go along with you - I don't see why I'm automatically in the wrong.

[dream]

Unless you're talking about a literally life-or-death situation, such as driving a car, "err on the side of caution" is usually terrible advice. It is so here. RPGs give you the opportunity to take "risks" in a way that isn't really "risky" at all - that's a large part of the point. And if you never take those risks, neither you nor anyone else will ever experience anything new.

Caution is never terrible advice, and taking risks is one thing. Offending people with your lack of taste/maturity is something completely different. Establishing what's off-limits up front helps avoid that.

Another "requirement for being an adult" is "standing up for yourself and not relying on others to protect you all the time". Another is "making your own decisions, taking due consideration of the herd but not automatically deferring to them".

Tabletop RPGs are group-centered & thus, gamers need to be considerate of their fellow players. I've seen great players & GMs leave groups because there was at least one munchkin at the table who made things unpleasant. The game's about the GROUP, not the individual. You want to play alone, there's video games.

Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.

So, running off other players is okay to you?

So, "disruptive and hurtful" to what? To the game or the plot? Sure you can disrupt and hurt that, but that's an imaginary construct, and as such, disposable. Sure, it might represent years of time invested by some participants; but if it's so fragile that you can shatter it with one bad decision, that suggests it's so flawed that they're frankly better off starting over anyway. To be "disruptive and hurtful" to people you'd have to go a whole huge leap further.

The GM's plot is disposable to you? So, at your gaming table, you do whatever you want with no regard for other players?

If you choose to put my character in a position of having to act against their established nature, interests and characterisation in order for you to "have fun", and I refuse to have my character go along with you - I don't see why I'm automatically in the wrong.

It's called a social contract; people sit down at the gaming table together and trust that everyone is there to a fun, respectful experience. When someone decides they want to be disruptive because "that's what my PC would do", it jeopardizes the entire game. Short-term & long-term. This is why I for one never tolerate munchkins at the table: you can play like a mature, respectful person or you can leave. Thankfully, I've had great players that appreciate that stance & support it.

[Darth Ultron]

This really is an issue that pops up a lot, and there really isn't a good answer without context.

Seems there is an easy enough answer in two simple parts:

1.Common Sense

2.The DM stepping up and taking absolute and total control of the game for everyone's benefit.

Common sense should be easy enough. But if it is not so ''common'', just answer the question of ''what would make sense in 1950?''.

The DM control is the big one. And this is what really separates a DM from a Player. The Player just wants to have fun. The DM wants to have a good game where everyone has fun.

For example, it is best for a DM to just outright ban anything that looks like it might be a problem. Like when a player says ''Oh, my character is greedy and might kinda sometimes sort of do bad and evil PVP stuff to get more loot and money'' or ''My character is a Lone Wolf''.

[goto124]

The last paragraph is assuming the DM could see it at the start of the campaign. Your examples are the obvious ones, but it's not always like that.

Often, we don't have that luxury of knowing the future. Things change over time.

How far should we ban things anyway? How far before we end up with extremely bland and generic characters?

Also, why did the 'go OOC or create trouble' situation crop up in the first place?

How much trouble is enough trouble to act OOC? Acting in-character can bring some sort of trouble, and oftentimes players are okay with it, because roleplay.

[veti]

Caution is never terrible advice, and taking risks is one thing. Offending people with your lack of taste/maturity is something completely different. Establishing what's off-limits up front helps avoid that.

I beg to differ. Caution is usually terrible advice. I didn't say anything against "establishing what's off-limits up front", and I have no problem with that.

Tabletop RPGs are group-centered & thus, gamers need to be considerate of their fellow players. I've seen great players & GMs leave groups because there was at least one munchkin at the table who made things unpleasant. The game's about the GROUP, not the individual. You want to play alone, there's video games.

Right back at you. We're talking about a situation where you have put me in an acutely uncomfortable position, and your advice, and the bulk of advice in this thread, is to roll over and suck it up in the interests of The Group, who are all assumed to be revelling in my lack of agency.

I say no.

Example: we were on a long and intricate quest, several months of playing time in, and came to the end of our last plausible lead to find - a demon. The demon started spouting some kind of half-baked plot exposition to us. We all assumed we'd hear him out, and at some point he'd drop enough breadcrumbs that we could at least discern another lead.

But the party paladin had other ideas. Pretty much as soon as the demon went into its spiel, he was like "Why are we listening to this creature's lies?", and before we could restrain him, he killed it. Leaving us with no leads at all.

But strangely, that wasn't the end of the campaign. It survived that bit of disruptive behaviour. The DM gnashed his teeth a bit, and had to improvise for the next couple of hours until he could throw us another plot hook. Other players reacted with varying degrees of exasperation and amusement. The paladin most certainly did not act cautiously or ask for permission or consensus before acting, and I for one (and for the record, I was one of the more exasperated players) think he did the right thing.

So, running off other players is okay to you?

I dare you - I double-dare you - to find where I suggested that.

The GM's plot is disposable to you? So, at your gaming table, you do whatever you want with no regard for other players?

Damn' straight the plot is disposable. I don't see how that translates into "having no regard for other players", however.

It's called a social contract; people sit down at the gaming table together and trust that everyone is there to a fun, respectful experience. When someone decides they want to be disruptive because "that's what my PC would do", it jeopardizes the entire game. Short-term & long-term. This is why I for one never tolerate munchkins at the table: you can play like a mature, respectful person or you can leave. Thankfully, I've had great players that appreciate that stance & support it.

Who's talking about munchkins? Besides, there's nothing particularly disruptive about munchkins. It's not roleplaying that makes them annoying - if anything, it's the opposite.

"Jeopardises the entire game"? What the heck kind of fragile games do you play in? I've been in plenty of arguments around RP tables in my time, some of them cast a pall over that session, but any DM who gives up just because of that - well, sounds to me like their heart wasn't really in it in the first place, and you're probably doing them a favour by giving them a reason to stop.

[dream]

I beg to differ. Caution is usually terrible advice. I didn't say anything against "establishing what's off-limits up front", and I have no problem with that.

We disagree & that's fine.

Right back at you. We're talking about a situation where you have put me in an acutely uncomfortable position, and your advice, and the bulk of advice in this thread, is to roll over and suck it up in the interests of The Group, who are all assumed to be revelling in my lack of agency.

We aren't discussing the same thing. I'm addressing the OP & disruptive behavior & where that line is. You're discussing player agency.

I dare you - I double-dare you - to find where I suggested that.

Actually, the OP said "disruptive and hurtful" - "to people" was your interpolation. So let's get some sense of proportion here: this is a game. The worst, the very worst, you are ever likely to achieve is a blazing row that results in one or more members, very likely yourself, storming out and never speaking to any of the others again. That's hardly a life-changing outcome, and to achieve even that very limited apocalypse, you'd have to push the envelope a heck of a lot further than merely making a few questionable in-character decisions.

Damn' straight the plot is disposable. I don't see how that translates into "having no regard for other players", however.

That's obvious.

Who's talking about munchkins? Besides, there's nothing particularly disruptive about munchkins. It's not roleplaying that makes them annoying - if anything, it's the opposite.

I mentioned munchkins & yes, the term "munchkin" was coined by old-school gamers to describe new gamers who demonstrated little or no maturity at the gaming table. Here's a clear definition and I'm not saying you are a munchkin. I'm saying munchkins are normally disruptive & think they can do whatever they want at the table.

"Jeopardises the entire game"? What the heck kind of fragile games do you play in? I've been in plenty of arguments around RP tables in my time, some of them cast a pall over that session, but any DM who gives up just because of that - well, sounds to me like their heart wasn't really in it in the first place, and you're probably doing them a favour by giving them a reason to stop.

We obviously disagree here & I know why & let's just leave it at that.

[Yora]

If one player makes a character that does not work together with the party "because that's what his character would do", it is perfectly within the right of the other players to kick that character out of the party, because that's what their characters would do.

And I might even tell the players that doing that would be in their own best interest. Being an adventurer is dangerous enough, you don't need someone that is a threat to you.

[Mr.Moron]

No matter how you're framing it if it come down to a disruptive action being done because it's the only thing the character would do, you've simply proven one thing: The character is inappropriate for the game at hand.

The character should be ejected immediately. "It's what the character would do!" or "Sorry, I've got to go with the character" are just what make the difference between also ejecting the player or not.

[Hawkstar]

We aren't discussing the same thing. I'm addressing the OP & disruptive behavior & where that line is. You're discussing player agency.

While they may not be the same thing, they can be extremely closely related. People are not psychic, yet due to the nature of group dynamics "Bow to the will of the group" can often result in an extremely mediocre gameplay experience where nobody's willing to really do anything assertive with their character because it's not along with the pile of compromises that define the will of 'the group', leading to everyone half-assing everything. 'Disruptive' behaviors fall on a continuum,that ranges from "New, unexpected and exciting direction" to "Oh god, get this guy out of here."

That's obvious.

That is an absolute worst-case scenario (Though I would say he forgot to mention the possibility of one person going berzerk and trying to stab everyone)

I mentioned munchkins & yes, the term "munchkin" was coined by old-school gamers to describe new gamers who demonstrated little or no maturity at the gaming table. Here's a clear definition and I'm not saying you are a munchkin. I'm saying munchkins are normally disruptive & think they can do whatever they want at the table.

No matter how you're framing it if it come down to a disruptive action being done because it's the only thing the character would do, you've simply proven one thing: The character is inappropriate for the game at hand.

The character should be ejected immediately. "It's what the character would do!" or "Sorry, I've got to go with the character" are just what make the difference between also ejecting the player or not.

Actually, one offense should generally not be enough. It takes a pattern of behavior, which may not be true.

[Flickerdart]

No matter how you're framing it if it come down to a disruptive action being done because it's the only thing the character would do, you've simply proven one thing: The character is inappropriate for the game at hand.

The character should be ejected immediately. "It's what the character would do!" or "Sorry, I've got to go with the character" are just what make the difference between also ejecting the player or not.

That's a really good point - I hadn't even thought about removing a disruptive character from the party without also booting the player.

[goto124]

'Disruptive' behaviors fall on a continuum,that ranges from "New, unexpected and exciting direction" to "Oh god, get this guy out of here."

Yea. Seeking a balance between the two extremes can be troublesome here.

On one hand, it's hard to have an interesting plot/game without conflict. On the other hand, when there's so much conflict that players are constantly arguing, that's not good either.

Much of it is based on emotions and personal preferences though, and the group will go through a number of rough spots before they find something everyone's happy with.

It is a rather blurry line.

[Segev]

This really is not as hard as people are making it out to be. When you get a "dude, not cool" reaction from your fellow players, you've stepped over it. When you are removing other players' agency over their characters, you should be cautious and make sure it's okay OOC.

If you know your action will "ruin the game" for somebody else, don't do it. Don't be afraid to call out if you see somebody taking action that will ruin the game for you; they may not be aware.

Of course, this can be abused. But hopefully, you're not playing with people who secretly want to abuse this sort of thing to control everybody else. If you are, that's a deeper problem than "is my IC action acceptable OOC?"

Basically, treat others how you would like to be treated, and, if you find that your enjoyment and theirs are irreconciliable, negotiate a compromise or one of you (whichever seems more out of line with the rest of the players' preferred mode of fun) should leave that particular game. It's not worth gaming to make yourself unhappy, and it's a real jerk move to game to make others unhappy.

[NichG]

Take whatever stance you want, but don't delude yourself that 'its what my character would do' actually provides insulation from you being responsible for making that choice. If you make a choice which might piss people off because you've weighed the risk, thats one thing. But if you believe that you should be immune to that risk because of the layer of separation of your character sheet, then you're going to run into the difference between 'reality the way it is' and 'reality the way you'd like it to be'. Whatever logic you can spin within your own head, it doesn't matter at all to how the other people at the table are going to feel about it. You can decide 'they're in the wrong', but it won't change the fact that your relationship with them may become different as a result.

So yeah, that risk is totally yours to take, but don't expect lines like 'its what my character would do' or 'I thought you would find it fun' or 'philosophically, you having fun isn't actually the point' to garner you any sympathy if something like that does go sour.

[1337 b4k4]

If you choose to put my character in a position of having to act against their established nature, interests and characterisation in order for you to "have fun", and I refuse to have my character go along with you - I don't see why I'm automatically in the wrong.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why communication is important. Before the game begins, everyone need to be on the same page as to what type of game it is and what sort of characters and behaviors will or won't be allowed. Because veti is right to a degree, if you allow a player a certain character and then have to put that character in contrary positions to have fun, that's a **** move as bad as constantly trying to trap the paladin into falling.

On the other hand, venti, if your group decides you're going to start a bunch of low level mobsters stumbling across treasure and you roll up a paladin, that's your problem because you created a character knowing it would be put in positions requiring it to act against character by the nature of the game.

Ultimately gaming is a group activity and even if you're not in the wrong, if you're the odd man out, you have to decide whether being right or gaming is more important to you.