Playing a character based on Sandor "The Hound" Clegane but in quite a LG party

[leon666]

So I've recently started playing a character heavily based on The Hound, he is my 1st 5e character and I am thoroughly enjoying him.

However what I am having trouble with is it's quite a "good" campaign with not so much room for being a bit of a "C**T" Like Sandor.
For example when we were accosted by street thugs in employ of a local noble, my interrogation technique involved threatening to break some fingers and a few swift knocks to the jaw. Which did not go down too well with 90% of the party.

So here's my question, how much of a barbaric ass can I be (and does anyone have suggestions on how to accomplish this) while still hopefully not offending my entire party every time?

Or should I perhaps just have a rethink and make something more party appropriate?

Also, I have him as LN, but am more used to the 3.5 way of thinking and don't know if alignment is basically the same or not.

[hamishspence]

Dragon Magazine had him as True Neutral. That was after he'd deserted King's Landing though - it's not clear what his alignment would have been early on.

[Talamare]

I think the better question is can you and your group even handle it.

Everyone needs to remember that it's a game. Nothing that happens in game, happens in real life.
In one of my games 2 PCs started arguing in game, and the argument escalated into hatred in the real world.

If you're worried that might happen, then I would kinda of recommend just not doing it at all...

On the other hand, if you doubt it will. Remember that Sandor has a pretty Good heart.
He just has a cold, realistic understanding of how the world works.

I would classify him as a Neutral Good character. Who understands that sometimes hands needs to get dirtied.
Who is willing to suffer that heavy burden so that others don't need to.

[hamishspence]

He has no problem murdering the innocent if he's ordered to do so (Micah back in book 1).

[Unoriginal]

So I've recently started playing a character heavily based on The Hound, he is my 1st 5e character and I am thoroughly enjoying him.

However what I am having trouble with is it's quite a "good" campaign with not so much room for being a bit of a "C**T" Like Sandor.
For example when we were accosted by street thugs in employ of a local noble, my interrogation technique involved threatening to break some fingers and a few swift knocks to the jaw. Which did not go down too well with 90% of the party.

So here's my question, how much of a barbaric ass can I be (and does anyone have suggestions on how to accomplish this) while still hopefully not offending my entire party every time?

Or should I perhaps just have a rethink and make something more party appropriate?

Clegane's a brutal fighter, and he's not above roughing some **** up, but he's not the kind to do something villainous without reasons (if the reasons are sound is another topic). IMO an expy of him would be less "barbaric ass" and more "very pragmatic, cynical jerk who's keeping his decency deep inside).


My advice: talk with your group, see what they're ok with and what *you* are ok with.


IMO, a few hits and threats to breaking fingers on a criminal tried to kill people wouldn't be considered outrageous by most good characters. It's just more brutal than a modern good cop/bad cop routine, but it's still on the realm of what Batman would do.

Now if you actually broke the fingers, or beat up the guy until he talked, it'd be another story.

Also, I have him as LN, but am more used to the 3.5 way of thinking and don't know if alignment is basically the same or not.

It's similar in many aspects, but overall mean something different. 5e's alignment describes your typical behavior, it's acknowledged it's basically impossible to behave that way 100% of the time, and it's only a part of your character's features, along with Bonds, Ideals and Flaws.

As the PHB says, 5e lawful neutral creatures "act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes." It could fit an expy of Sandor Clegane, but he notably doesn't care much about even personal codes when a pragmatic need arises (ex: him stealing from the farmer after saying he doesn't steal because of his code), and he tends to have disdain for traditions, and only respect the law when convenient.

He also became much more benevolent in later seasons, if still a jerk, so it depends on at which point of his character growth you want your expy to be based on.

He has no problem murdering the innocent if he's ordered to do so (Micah back in book 1).

That was, as you said, back at the start of the series. And disobeying your king's son and employer, when said son is a murderous ****head, isn't smart, it has little to do with having a sense of loyalty.

If you base a character on early Clegane, he'd probably be neutral evil bordering on true neutral. If you base him on, say, last season Clegane, he'd probably be neutral good bordering on true neutral.

[Willie the Duck]

However what I am having trouble with is it's quite a "good" campaign with not so much room for being a bit of a "C**T" Like Sandor.

As of the end of the last television season, he's allied with the lords of light guys and working with Jon Snow. Neither is really LG, but they are rather self-defined-as good guys. They know he's a bit of a salty brute, but they keep him within their parameters of acceptable behavior relatively well.

And heck, Roy keeps Belkar mostly in check, why can't your group work with your character?

Also, I have him as LN, but am more used to the 3.5 way of thinking and don't know if alignment is basically the same or not.

The basic rules are free.

[hamishspence]

Clegane's a brutal fighter, and he's not above roughing some **** up, but he's not the kind to do something villainous without reasons (if the reasons are sound is another topic).

He did come very close to raping Sansa (he says). The implication is that he would have done it if she hadn't given him a "moment of conscience" by singing that particular song (Gentle Mother).

TV Tropers cite him as a possible example of Chaotic Neutral:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ChaoticNeutral

Some kind of Neutral, after leaving King's Landing, is plausible.

[suplee215]

Has anyone complained either in or out of game? Getting 4-5 people to all agree to be goody two shoes is unusual to say the least and this type of conflict might add an interesting layer instead of being a problem. I will suggest looking at the most recent season and as you see The Hound interact with a bunch of noble lawful good guys. He views them as idiots and say so. Might want to ask about breaking fingers before doing so, and then complain about how that would have made things easier when things screw up next time.

[Unoriginal]

He did come very close to raping Sansa (he says). The implication is that he would have done it if she hadn't given him a "moment of conscience" by singing that particular song (Gentle Mother).

If it's true, then a character based on how he was early on would be neutral evil, and going closer to neutral good as things go. But from what I get, he just said that because he wanted Aria to kill him to end the horrible pain he was in.

TV Tropers cite him as a possible example of Chaotic Neutral:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ChaoticNeutral

Some kind of Neutral, after leaving King's Landing, is plausible.

TV tropes does not use 5e's definition of alignments.


Also, let's be clear, Sandor Clegane himself has no alignment. He is not a D&D 5e character, and so has nothing related to this game.

A D&D character based on him, however, will have an alignment.

Now, it could be possible to argue a character based on Sandor as he is between leaving King's Landing and his near-death experience would be chaotic, but he does little of the "follow his whim and desires" that's usually associated with chaos. Again, he's mostly a cynic and a pragmatic who will respect his word and contracts when it's not a bother to do so, not because he cares about law or the like but simply because it's practical.

[hamishspence]

TV tropes does not use 5e's definition of alignments.

5e's definition is so vague, that older definitions are often more useful for fleshing it out.

But from what I get, he just said that because he wanted Aria to kill him to end the horrible pain he was in.

The scene shown from Sansa's own perspective, did seem a bit suggestive of what was going through his head at the time - and the Character Page for him does bring it up (warning - language):

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...reHouseClegane

[GlenSmash!]

So I've recently started playing a character heavily based on The Hound, he is my 1st 5e character and I am thoroughly enjoying him.

However what I am having trouble with is it's quite a "good" campaign with not so much room for being a bit of a "C**T" Like Sandor.
For example when we were accosted by street thugs in employ of a local noble, my interrogation technique involved threatening to break some fingers and a few swift knocks to the jaw. Which did not go down too well with 90% of the party.

So here's my question, how much of a barbaric ass can I be (and does anyone have suggestions on how to accomplish this) while still hopefully not offending my entire party every time?

Or should I perhaps just have a rethink and make something more party appropriate?

Also, I have him as LN, but am more used to the 3.5 way of thinking and don't know if alignment is basically the same or not.

It's perfectly ok that it didn't go down well with the other party, your characters don't have to be all from the same mold. They just have to ave good reasons to stick with eachother.

Think of a few ties to other player characters for why your character sticks with them, and a few for them on why they stick with you.

[strangebloke]

In asoiaf all his evil acts are at the behest of his Lord. He seems to consider raping Sansa, but that's about it for acts of his own initiative.

In a group working for some gold dragon? He's probably fine.

[hamishspence]

In asoiaf all his evil acts are at the behest of his Lord. He seems to consider raping Sansa, but that's about it for acts of his own initiative.

There's the "robbing people who are already pretty poor, increasing their chances of dying soon" thing - at least in the TV show.

[Unoriginal]

5e's definition is so vague, that older definitions are often more useful for fleshing it out.

No, because older definitions are for different games, which are irrelevant when discussing what 5e is.

You wouldn't use 4e's alignment definitions for 5e, the same way you wouldn't use 2nd edition's alignment definitions for 3.5 or 4e.

The "vagueness" is on purpose, because the number of behaviors fitting one alignment is quite vast. But as long as they fit the criterias of the alignment description, they're part of this alignment.

In a group working for some gold dragon? He's probably fine.

Well, gold dragons eat people alive, so having a goon who threaten to break fingers is relatively tame in comparison

[hamishspence]

In at least some sources, most Good metallics don't eat sapients. They might kill them, but they won't eat them.

[Aett_Thorn]

Next time you're in an interrogation situation, just have your character go through all of the things that he wants to do to the hapless victim, and ask the party if it's okay if he does them or not.

"Can I break his fingers?"
"No."
"Can I stab him just a little?"
"No."
"Can I rip out toenails?"
"No."
"Okay, well how about just a small amount of flaying?"
"NO!!"

Agree, then get them to leave you and the victim alone in the room.

"Well, I'm glad that those goody two-shoes are gone. Now, down to business."

Most victims will gladly give up some good intel without actually having to do anything then.

[Talamare]

Next time you're in an interrogation situation, just have your character go through all of the things that he wants to do to the hapless victim, and ask the party if it's okay if he does them or not.

"Can I break his fingers?"
"No."
"Can I stab him just a little?"
"No."
"Can I rip out toenails?"
"No."
"Okay, well how about just a small amount of flaying?"
"NO!!"

Agree, then get them to leave you and the victim alone in the room.

"Well, I'm glad that those goody two-shoes are gone. Now, down to business."

Most victims will gladly give up some good intel without actually having to do anything then.

I've only seen the show, so I won't say how his personality is in the books.
Tho from the show I see that playing out more like
Thief - "I'm not telling you anything!"
Good Guy "TALK!"
Thief - "NEVER!"
Clegane "Oh for *beep* sakes" walks over and breaks a finger "Start talking or I'll keep breaking"
Thief - Talks or doesn't; upto DM
After the encounter and the Thief leaves or something
Good Guy "YOU DIDN'T NEED TO DO THAT"
Clegane "Oh grow up, all I did was break a few fingers, or did you forget we're in a hurry."

Second time this scene shows up, you get to be all snarky if their peaceful methods fail.

[Cynthaer]

For example when we were accosted by street thugs in employ of a local noble, my interrogation technique involved threatening to break some fingers and a few swift knocks to the jaw. Which did not go down too well with 90% of the party.

So here's my question, how much of a barbaric ass can I be (and does anyone have suggestions on how to accomplish this) while still hopefully not offending my entire party every time?

Or should I perhaps just have a rethink and make something more party appropriate?

Also, I have him as LN, but am more used to the 3.5 way of thinking and don't know if alignment is basically the same or not.

A few thoughts.

1. Don't worry about the alignment.

Some feel alignment is an outdated relic, while some feel it's useful as part of a character concept but often mishandled. What everybody agrees on is that the moment it's causing problems for you or the party, it's no longer helpful.

Set the alignment question aside and come back to it once you've figured out everything else.

2. We're the wrong people to ask.

Okay, not exactly, but it's right there in your post: "How barbaric can I be without offending my party?" Only your party can answer that, and it's okay to ask them.

Are they okay with a dynamic where one party member is noticeably more brutal than everyone else? Is that interesting roleplaying for them, or does it just keep them from having a campaign with the tone they actually want? We know it annoys their characters, but does it annoy the players?

3. The same characters can have different social dynamics. Find one that works for you.

You clearly know and like the character you're playing. But knowing their worldview, motivations, and habits doesn't 100% require that they take one specific action at a given time. You have choices as a player.

Consider the following interactions from three different groups, each with three goody-goodies and one guy who's spent his whole life breaking things to make people talk.

Group 1 ("The Impulsive Jackass"):
Defeated Thug: *grinning* "Lord Wantsyoudead? Never heard of 'em."
Clegane's Player: I immediately break his pinky and ask if his memory's improved any.
Everybody Else: Dude what the ****?
Clegane's Player: What? It's what my character would do! It's the only thing he knows!

Here, the Clegane player is being rude and preempting anybody else's actions, then justifying it with his character. This is bad playing, and is always going to cause problems.

Group 2 ("Dragging Them Down to Your Level"):
Defeated Thug: *grinning* "Lord Wantsyoudead? Never heard of 'em."
Clegane's Player: I turn to the rest of the party. "You know, back in my army days, I learned that a lot of memories seem to get blocked in the hands. Turns out breaking a few fingers tends to loosen them up some."
Cleric: "We are not going to resort to torture. It is both barbaric and ineffective."
Clegane: "Looks like Sunshine Sparkle over here thinks you'll talk even with your hands in one piece. Me, I'm not convinced. I suggest you try to prove her right."

Here, the Clegane player is pushing his character's approach into the scene, by proposing it where the thug can hear him, but the others have an opportunity to stop action from being taken.

By continuing to threaten the thug even while backing off, the character ensures that the threat lingers over any action the rest of the party takes, but everybody else also gets to assert their own morals as well.

Group 3 ("The Eye-Roller"):
Defeated Thug: *grinning* "Lord Wantsyoudead? Never heard of 'em."
Clegane's Player: I turn to the rest of the party. "You're not going to get him to talk by holding hands and singing kumbayah, you know."
Cleric: "Be that as it may, we are not going to resort to torture. How many times have we been over this?"
Clegane: "Not enough for you to figure out how the world actually works, apparently. When sending him a strongly-worded letter fails miserably and you want to get something done, I'll be over here."

Here, the dynamic with the party is one where Clegane already knows he will be overridden, so he only lodges a token protest to clarify that he still thinks they're all naive idiots.


The key here is that the characterization remains the same, unless your character is defined by their insistence on doing rash things, but the social role in the party and the actions they take are different. Choose an approach that makes your whole group happy, including you.

[Talamare]

Group 1 ("The Impulsive Jackass"):
Defeated Thug: *grinning* "Lord Wantsyoudead? Never heard of 'em."
Clegane's Player: I immediately break his pinky and ask if his memory's improved any.
Everybody Else: Dude what the ****?
Clegane's Player: What? It's what my character would do! It's the only thing he knows!

Here, the Clegane player is being rude and preempting anybody else's actions, then justifying it with his character. This is bad playing, and is always going to cause problems.

One way our group plays is that each character is allowed to at any point do things, even things the group is against.
However nothing happens truly instantly. At any point other characters can react to stop any action from occurring.

So in this example, Clegane would be like "I break his pinky" and the Cleric could be like "I grab both their hands stopping them before it happens."

This way allows people to have initiative, they don't need to "Ask permission to play". However, they don't have instant automatic approval to anything that happens.

[strangebloke]

One way our group plays is that each character is allowed to at any point do things, even things the group is against.
However nothing happens truly instantly. At any point other characters can react to stop any action from occurring.

So in this example, Clegane would be like "I break his pinky" and the Cleric could be like "I grab both their hands stopping them before it happens."

This way allows people to have initiative, they don't need to "Ask permission to play". However, they don't have instant automatic approval to anything that happens.

disagree.

Just talk it out with the party ahead of time. Give examples.

Cleg:"Hey, I know you're all lawful good... what does that mean to you? I'm thinking of playing a cynical hardass. For instance, he'd break fingers to get information he wants. Or take food from a poor farmer if he was hungry. The guy will do whatever it takes to get the job done."

Paladin: "Oh, my guy will try to minimize that, but he's an old campaigner. He knows that sometimes things have to be done."

Wizard: "No, Bartlby could never conscience dealing with that."

Cleg: "Well let's figure out what could work."

Anytime you find yourself needing something like social initiative, you've basically entered PvP-lite. Some tables may be into that. I'm not. At all.

[Cynthaer]

One way our group plays is that each character is allowed to at any point do things, even things the group is against.
However nothing happens truly instantly. At any point other characters can react to stop any action from occurring.

So in this example, Clegane would be like "I break his pinky" and the Cleric could be like "I grab both their hands stopping them before it happens."

This way allows people to have initiative, they don't need to "Ask permission to play". However, they don't have instant automatic approval to anything that happens.

disagree.

Just talk it out with the party ahead of time. Give examples.

Cleg:"Hey, I know you're all lawful good... what does that mean to you? I'm thinking of playing a cynical hardass. For instance, he'd break fingers to get information he wants. Or take food from a poor farmer if he was hungry. The guy will do whatever it takes to get the job done."

Paladin: "Oh, my guy will try to minimize that, but he's an old campaigner. He knows that sometimes things have to be done."

Wizard: "No, Bartlby could never conscience dealing with that."

Cleg: "Well let's figure out what could work."

Anytime you find yourself needing something like social initiative, you've basically entered PvP-lite. Some tables may be into that. I'm not. At all.

Honestly, either of these would work, depending on how the group wants to play.

strangebloke's approach is obviously the more common, where you just sort it out informally amongst yourselves and then use your own judgement to act in a way that both expresses your own character and doesn't step on any toes.

Talamare's approach encourages players to make more bold, dramatic actions, because they know anything too extreme or dangerous will be prevented by the other characters.

As long as everybody's acting in good faith, that could be pretty fun and allow for a little more "cinematic" storytelling. As Talamare notes, it offers one way to allow the "Impulsive Jackass" character to exist without destroying the group, because she can constantly announce that her character [reads the book bound in human skin/steals the Demon Lord's prized jewel while his back is turned/implies that the King is romantically involved with a horse]. Someone else says, "I [grab her arm/cover her mouth] before anything happens," and you move on.

Really, it's just a more formal way to do something that I suspect most groups already do: Out of character riffing mixed in with actual serious actions. It just lets you say "I [do stupid thing]" instead of "aw man, I should totally [do stupid thing]".

[strangebloke]

Really, it's just a more formal way to do something that I suspect most groups already do: Out of character riffing mixed in with actual serious actions. It just lets you say "I [do stupid thing]" instead of "aw man, I should totally [do stupid thing]".

Its one thing to joke about doing [the stupid thing] and another to actually make your character do [the stupid thing].

But Clegane here isn't talking about doing something irresponsible and potentially campaign disrupting, he's talking about playing his character. Letting the goody-two shoes interrupt him every time he decides to take what he sees as a rational course of action is generally not fun.

Cleg:"I slap the prisoner."
Cleric:"No you don't, I grab your arm."
Cleg:*Sigh* "'You are lucky the cleric is here' I growl menacingly. 'You better play nice with him and give him everything he wants, because if not, I will be back tonight when he is asleep.'"
Cleric:"I glare at Cleg. 'I will stay up the whole night to watch him if I have to. Torture is not happening under my watch.'"
Cleg: "I throw up my hands and storm out."

Then he's out of the session until the interrogation is over, and probably annoyed because he wanted to play a character that actually got to be kind of rough and mean. Letting the other players thwart each other constantly is just asking for trouble.

He's much better off either not playing Cleg at all, or working out something with the other players ahead of time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Clegane I will suggest to you is true neutral for starters.

He's also a cynic, and he does have a certain personal set of lines he doesn't like to cross.
In the later seasons of the show, there is a redemption arc that we don't get in the books since the books don't get finished, so he has the potential to be moving toward lawful neutral or neutral good ... it's a soft border region between those three.

He is very good with violence.
He is a pragmatist.
As his character has developed during the story, he becomes more self aware of his own shortcomings as a person, and thus picks his spots for letting loose with violence to the point of "they sorta deserved it" becomes the norm.

Early in the story, he was a lawful and dutiful hound. More lawful neutral. When he leaves and travels with Arya, we see him being less lawful and a bit more flexible. He no longer has a master to serve.

Above all, Sandor has a large measure of common sense and has a pretty good BS detector.

Play those to the hilt. He's also got no use for liars, bullies, and bullshirters.

He does not take compliments well, but a sincere one looks like it will be able to touch him.
He has a heart, but he's also got layers of callouses on it.

A great character to work with as your group's story progresses.

Best of luck. Whatever you do, don't be needlessly cruel. Sandor as he is now in GoT will not do that; he's more circumspect now that he has to answer for his actions ... to his own judgment. And remember, he's a cynic but he will have a hard time lying to himself.

[GlenSmash!]

Whatever you do, don't be needlessly cruel. Sandor as he is now in GoT will not do that; he's more circumspect now that he has to answer for his actions ... to his own judgment. And remember, he's a cynic but he will have a hard time lying to himself.

That's good advice right there.

[Cynthaer]

Letting the other players thwart each other constantly is just asking for trouble.

He's much better off either not playing Cleg at all, or working out something with the other players ahead of time.

No argument here. You'll never be able to solve a social problem with a mechanical solution, whether the mechanics are "anybody can veto an action" or "you do whatever you say you do".

If Cleg's player specifically wants Cleg to torture the guy, and the other players don't want that to happen, there's no game rule that will resolve this.

I've been assuming that Cleg's player is fine with no torture actually occurring, and we're just looking at different ways to fully express Cleg's character without the other players needing to (A) let him torture people, (B) initiate PvP combat to stop him, or (C) kick the character out of the party entirely.

My point is that the dynamics in "Dragging Them Down to Your Level" and "The Eye-Roller" from my earlier post are examples of how to do this, and Talamare's approach is one way to do a character who tries to start the torture but is stopped by the others.

One way or another, though, nobody's getting tortured.

[leon666]

Thanks everyone for all your responses, everything has been super helpful. Going to apply some of the advice on how to rp it and if it still isn't going over well have a chat with my fellow players about what is and isn't acceptable to them and/or their characters.

[Talamare]

Its one thing to joke about doing [the stupid thing] and another to actually make your character do [the stupid thing].

But Clegane here isn't talking about doing something irresponsible and potentially campaign disrupting, he's talking about playing his character. Letting the goody-two shoes interrupt him every time he decides to take what he sees as a rational course of action is generally not fun.

Cleg:"I slap the prisoner."
Cleric:"No you don't, I grab your arm."
Cleg:*Sigh* "'You are lucky the cleric is here' I growl menacingly. 'You better play nice with him and give him everything he wants, because if not, I will be back tonight when he is asleep.'"
Cleric:"I glare at Cleg. 'I will stay up the whole night to watch him if I have to. Torture is not happening under my watch.'"
Cleg: "I throw up my hands and storm out."

Then he's out of the session until the interrogation is over, and probably annoyed because he wanted to play a character that actually got to be kind of rough and mean. Letting the other players thwart each other constantly is just asking for trouble.

He's much better off either not playing Cleg at all, or working out something with the other players ahead of time.

Cleg:"I slap the prisoner."
Cleric:"No you don't, I grab your arm."
Cleg:*Sigh* "'You are lucky the cleric is here' I growl menacingly. 'You better play nice with him and give him everything he wants, because if not, I will be back tonight when he is asleep.'"
========== This is Over ========
The interaction has finished, Clegane hasn't done any additional actions.


Cleric:"I glare at Cleg. 'I will stay up the whole night to watch him if I have to. Torture is not happening under my watch.'"
Now you're being intentionally confrontational to the player when he was being pretty nice to you. You're in the wrong here and you would be called out by basically everyone else at the table.

[Randomthom]

Sandor Clegane is, to me, a quintessential CN but actually quite easily influenced by those around him despite his I-don't-care-what-you-think demeanour.

When he was Cersei's/Joffrey's dog he killed Micah and seemed ok with that, around Sansa and Arya he grew somewhat more fatherly and protective of them.

Playing a similar character in a LG party would probably drag him towards good though he will almost certainly be more fast-and-loose with the rules. He will probably also try to find non-good justifications for his actions ("So long as I'm getting paid") but actually is quite good at heart. He will probably retain his neutrality rather than moving towards chaotic good because he isn't completely good and will on-occasion steal, cheat and even possibly murder if the circumstances call for it.

The main thing about Sandor Clegane is that he will respond to violence with violence but the main thing that separates him from his brother is that he will rarely start a fight (though he might provoke one).

Make sure to have proficiency in intimidate, leave diplomacy to the goodie-goodies :)

[GlenSmash!]

Sandor Clegane is, to me, a quintessential CN but actually quite easily influenced by those around him despite his I-don't-care-what-you-think demeanour.

This is a good point and to me a sign of low Charisma.

[Unoriginal]

This is a good point and to me a sign of low Charisma.

Not really. Charisma has nothing to do with being easily influenced. And someone who is like Sandor in D&D would have above-average Charisma and Wisdom.

It's most likely that Sandor's attitude would more likely be represented by a Flaw like "I'm abrasive to hide my need for people to follow/have affection for"