[OnyxFlame]

Most of my chars have something in common with me, mainly because there's certain types of chars I avoid playing because they're boring. It's not that I can't play something completely opposite to my personality, it's just that I don't find most of those possibilities interesting.

I've played manipulative bitches. I've played helpful but paranoid mages. I've played lazy storytelling fighters. But I just can NOT play a char who isn't very social, because it bores the crap outta me to just sit in a room alone, even if that's what my char would do. For this reason I don't tend to play evil thieves and assassins either.

It's also hard for me to have a char without a twisted sense of humor. I just adore teasing people and cracking the occasional dirty joke.

And because I'm so social and like to joke around so much, I tend not to play the bad guy type chars because they wouldn't be believable anyway. Sometimes my chars end up intimidating because they're powerful and have powerful friends, but not because they're mysterious or sadistic or anything. In fact it could be argued that threats are more effective when rarely used.

But generally I play the nice, helpful, overworked mage who tries to honor all her commitments and see justice done, no matter how much she bitches about random events along the way.

How about you guys?

[Crystal]

I think all of my characters have some sort of piece of myself in them. I like it that way because I can roleplay their ideals and all that pretty passionately and make it seem believable.

I personally have a hard time playing evil characters. I just feel bad when I'm mean So I tend not to play them so much. Then again I don't play hardcore lightwalkers either because I'd want to shoot myself if I was too righteous. But it's nice to challenge your roleplaying abilities once in a while. So I might create the occasional 'side' character. But my main characters are always concepts I know I can do well.

[Brianna]

I have fun playing various types of characters. On one game I played (it died several years ago) I played a dwarven druid (good aligned) so believable that when that mud died and I chose to play an evil character my old nemesis couldn't picture me playing an evil character.

I have fun exploring various races and classes and pushing my limits. I have played loner characters who finally find a friend/love.

My main style is having a character that does interact in some way and develop them from there.

[Dulan]

Eh.

I personally find RP with defined "good" and "evil" - or even a near global accepted perception of "good" and "evil" - extremely low-class, low-level RP. Logging in to a RP MUD and hearing those words is normally sufficient for me to leave and never bother coming again.

I also find cliched characters extremely irritating, for that matter.

My favorite character to date, however, has to be a senile old man that I once RP'd. He had a bit of an ability as a mage, and could haggle like no one else..but...he mistook tents for sheets strung up on lines in the middle of a town square. And the list goes on. That has to be one of my favorite characters to RP - a character that really has no bloody idea of what is going on, never will, and is really completely hopeless . The amount of fun to play those type of characters is endless, but it is extremely hard to find a MU* in which they can be played.

-D

[Maia]

I feel the same way, Dulan.

For starters, I believe the whole "good vs evil" duality to be hokum.  Does anyone IRL actually consider themselves to be evil?  Very, very few would, I suspect.  I think we tend to label as "evil" those whose attitudes and actions differ markedly from our own.  As humans, we all perform actions we are proud of and those we are not so proud of.

In the words of Edward Falconer,  "it is not so much the actions of characters that are important, but the motivations behind them".

And there lies the real reason why I avoid the "good" and "evil" stereotypes.  I just don't find acting good for the sake of being good (or evil for the sake of being evil) all that interesting.  Creating a character's history, value set and personality which enable me to determine how he or she would react to a particular circumstance, to explore his or her motivations - there for me lies the beauty and interest of role playing.


I tend to play characters that are essentially me, since this lays down a solid foundation for believable roleplay.  But, because of their backgrounds or environments or just a few personality quirks I introduced out of curiousity, they differ enough from me to enable me to feel like I'm exploring someone else's brain.  Because if I'm just going to be me, I might as well stay in the real world, right?

It's similar to my preference in gameworlds.  I most enjoy worlds that are very realistic, that is, in most regards they work just like RL.  For me, this makes the experience much more believable and immersive, so I feel I can more deeply experience those aspects of the world that do differ from Earth.


Maia

[OnyxFlame]

Well I didn't mean good and evil as in literal alignments and stuff, since DM is really cool not to have those heh. But play long enough and you'll notice people that most consider good and people that most consider evil, as well as the occasional confusion between the person's friends who think they're good and their enemies or random people who think they're evil.

But yeah I don't like to play goody goody 2 shoes types any more than I like to play the steal-your-mother's-dentures types. I like to be mostly helpful but sometimes bitchy and disgruntled or manipulative. My chars come up with "evil" plots now and then to advance towards their goals and so on. And I've had chars who try to do good and noble things and are criticized for it.

[shadowfyr]

Well. With respect to the good and evil thing... The two terms are far to broad to be accurate. They are used in the real world to refer to actions as they relate to normal behaviour, not the real nature of the individual. If you want to use them as actually attributes, then you need to define good = philanthropist and evil = sociopath. In other words a good person does beneficial things to people because it gives them an emotional benefit to know that they helped. Sociopaths by definition can only experience emotional benefit if the end result benefits themselves, any side benefit that may come to others is secondary.

This is also why you get the 'he just snapped' syndrome with some (most?) seriel killers. They generally play by the rules defined for the society around them right up to the point where their own desires and benefits out weight or over power the need to follow those rules. In other words if you like to kill things, the emotional boost from that will eventually over power the need you feel to conform.

An 'evil' character thus should be a ticking bomb that may appear no different than anyone else, though perhaps more selfish, but at some point there desire for power, wealth or just to start killing anyone that takes their fancy will become more important to them than the need to socially interact with others. That is assuming you choose to use a narrower and more accurate definition for 'evil'.

Note that this leaves open the possibility of a similar social disorder in which a person could be too good and litterally ignore all of their own needs because they have no true sense of themselves beyond others that they have helped. Which only goes to prove that people one both ends of the spectrum are totally nuts.

[GoatLady]

It seems many of you like to try out different things, maybe on the same game or as you switch from place to place, but I find that really difficult.

To go from being a schizophrenic assassin to a warm and friendly priest would be totally impossible for me to do. This is why I tend to use one game and one character at a time. Then as I move on, I modify my character slightly, to suit their new home.
  Playing this way, I find that I don't have the confusion of:
"Did he attack this character or one of my other ones?"
or
"Does this character know that person or have I only met them on another?"

I suppose I feel safer playing a character that I'm already in tune with, but I do put my heart and soul into her.
I tend to play a "nice" character (Staying away from the word "good" since she wouldn't put herself in danger to help another, which is how I see a "good" character) although she is cold and unhelpful to other females out of jealousy. I can recall one time when a girl asked me for directions to a city and I took her to a tomb where she was almost destroyed by a group of bats. Was this an evil thing to do? Possibly, but ask any male around and they'll tell you how sweet and innocent she is!

I find it unrealistic to play a beautiful character because one persons idea of beauty may not be anothers so I let them decide this. Although I don't think I share the same view on this with a vast number of people since I see all too often a "beautiful female with a shapely body".
Well girls, don't we all want to be her...?! We all know the pretty ones are the man-eaters anyway  

[Tindalos]

Personally, I have no problem playing any type though I still have something of myself in every character I create. I've played the evil and misunderstood magic user, the lonesome ranger in the lush forest, the sweaty blacksmith, graceful noblewoman and so on...
My longest living character has been alive for more than two years and I happily admit that both the character and myself have evolved since he was created. I've learned a lot about roleplaying, scheming, backstabbing (literal), diplomacy as well as I've put parts of myself into the making of my favorite character ever.

[Alaire]

Firstly, I must say Tindalos, you play a wonderful shifty bastard pc.

I never really had a problem playing different types of pc's, and admit that all of mine have a piece of me in them.  I've played evil demons and angelic priestesses.  I do have to agree with Dulan though, that while I consider my demons 'evil', they are far from black-and-white evil, and always have something about them that is either righteous or likeable-even to a small group of people.  They're never straight-up EVIL with no depth behind that label.  I have been working on my style of emoting lately, watching carefully how I phrase my sentences in text.  I find that gives away more than anything who is playing who and seems to be my only 'style'.

I think the secret to good roleplay in general is being able to see the value in the shades of grey in everything.  Bad guys aren't all that interesting if they're just 'bad'.  The story behind that wickedness... the essence of the person behind the 'mastermind' label.... that's what makes roleplay good and rewarding.  

I played once with a serial-killer pc that was killing women and taking parts of their bodies in order to create himself the perfect bride.  While the premise is certainly creepy, what made it truly great were the breaks from the thrill of the chase, where he was alone with a victim and let some grief from his past show... or when he was talking to himself where he thought no one could hear... or when he finally had everything, but his magic failed him...  every bit of character development beyond the 'evil' he did, was engrossing to watch and scary to be a part of!!

[Falconer]

Believe it or not, this is actually a question that comes to light every couple of months or so on these forums or the forums at The Mud Connector. Saying that threads such as these, where players define the character "types" that they enjoy playing is not only a pet peve of mine, but a mindset that I think is adopted far too often. It's also one that, all things considered, has a truly negative impact on any intensive roleplaying environment.

The neccessity for a player to define a character "type/style" is one that's been handed down from Gygax and his team at TSR who created the original and advanced Dungeons and Dragons systems. The noble warrior, the furtive thief, the stoic mage--archetypes that appear in novels from Tolkien to Jordan, in video games and table top settings.

In table top settings, the class system is actually somewhat appropriate. It allows a group of players to specialize into various areas and go off on amazing adventures. The plot of a tabletop RPG is focused upon this journey, this adventure and the physical and emotional impact it has on the characters who travel it.

Online environments are completely different. With the majority of roleplaying MU*s that I've experienced, a developing storyline is only a part (sometimes major - as with Wes Platt's worlds - and sometimes very minor, as with the RPI Xyllomer.) The rest is the task of both administrators and players to create a living, breathing world. In a table top, fantasy RPG it would be ridiculous to chronicle the life of a blacksmith who sits all day by the forge and tinkers. In an online, fantasy world this is entirely appropriate.

That said, as a roleplaying administrator and creative director, I strongly urge my players (and for that matter, all players) to stray from this notion of creating a character type. The good vs. evil argument (which is another post entirely) aside, characters are far more interesting when built up from a set of values and experiences rather than constructed from an archetype down.

Start with the small details - your character's favorite food, musical tastes, weather. Begin creating a personality, add in background events (which should always be more mundane than the events experienced in-game) and adapt their personality to show how these past events have influenced their current position.

How your character acts and the profession your character takes should always be the last part of your creation process. Everything else about them - their set of values and experiences - should dictate these; not the other way around.

For those of you who like to take roleplaying from a mere hobby to a method of gaining personal insight, I'd suggest you take a look at the Aristotelean concept of eudaimonia. It may prove incredibly valuable to your character creation process.

Best,
Edward Falconer
The Cathyle Project

[John]

I agree with Falconer. Only I tend to work out who my parents are, then who raised me, who my friends were in my childhood, how I acted, how I act now, what I like/don't like. In that order.

I enjoy playing char's who'll be involved in politics. How they're involved in politics is completely different everytime. I've had people who'd collect rumors and sell them, I've had people who would just do whatever they're told and not think for themselves. All sorts really. However I always die.......

I tend to play the char's no-one notices. I'll rarely be in the spotlight, but more be like the person that just stands in the background and helps leaders pull of their plans.

[JilesDM]

I find it extremely useful to sketch out a rough outline of the personality I plan to play, e.g., slightly insane paranoid, eccentric genius with delusions of grandeur, angsty manic depressive, or unmotivated slob with a big mouth. The concept of personality type is completely orthogonal with respect to profession or class (assuming class is even a valid concept on the MU* in question).

I think you're mistaking using the concept of character personality with rehashing tired cliched archetypes, which are generally a combination of personality and profession.

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by I find it extremely useful to sketch out a rough outline of the personality I plan to play, e.g., slightly insane paranoid, eccentric genius with delusions of grandeur, angsty manic depressive, or unmotivated slob with a big mouth.

This is an excellent place to start - concentrating on the various personality quirks that will begin to define your character. Characters with reasons behind these personality traits are infinitely more interesting than those with just the traits themselves.

Consider, for example, the character of Hamlet. You could certainly start by brainstorming a list of personality traits: eccentric, drowning in melancholy, suicidal, unable to form true bonds of intimacy. But when you begin to add the motivations - the experiences and life events that have shaped these traits - immediately the character takes on an extra dimension and gains a prop of personal history to use in present and future roleplaying scenarios.

Originally Posted by I think you're mistaking using the concept of character personality with rehashing tired cliched archetypes, which are generally a combination of personality and profession.

No. These cliched archetypes are simply an exaggerated example of characters built on expressed traits rather than internal motivations.

A reference that may be of help is acting trainer Constantine Stanislavski's book An Actor Prepares. I've included a link to amazon.com's description and ordering information for those who are interested.

An Actor Prepares

Best,
Edward Falconer
The Cathyle Project

[Lindahl]

Originally Posted by I played once with a serial-killer that was killing women and taking parts of their bodies in order to create himself the perfect bride.

Ahh... a trip down memory lane.


Just kidding! (couldn't resist)

[OnyxFlame]

The purpose of this thread wasn't to drown in stereotypes, but to figure out what personalities people like to play, and how similar they are to the personalities of the people who play them.

I do tend to play mages most of the time, mainly because I prefer the mechanics, and because on the mud I play mages have more opportunity to be social than fighters. But any of my char personalities could work equally well with fighters, if I happened to want to play one. I don't think a mage's personality should be different than a fighter's, just because one's a mage and one's a fighter, and that wasn't what I meant with this thread anyway.

When I create a char, I do at least enough of their history to explain how they got to where the game dumps out newbies, and develop it more as time and circumstance allows. Then I figure out how my char reacted to events in their history, and how it flavors their interactions in the world today.

For instance, my current char is an attempt to take the old orphan thing and make it fresh and nonstereotypical. Very few people actually know her history, but it flavors everything she does. She's not the pity-me orphan, she's more like the ask-me-and-I'll-blow-you-up orphan. She tends to go back and forth between trusting no one, and wanting so badly to find companionship that she'll do almost anything. Sometimes she's overly grim and pessimistic, sometimes she's bouncy and jokes around in order to hide her true feelings. She tends to baby her close friends and give them teaching and such, but she's extremely evil and ruthless to her enemies. It takes a long time for her to truly care about someone and trust them, and sometimes it never gets past the you're-an-idiot-and-you-suck-ass stage. She's pretty nosy, but she likes to have secrets and will faithfully keep others' secrets unless she believes it necessary to reveal them in order to keep someone she cares about from dying. And yet she condoned the death of her cousin (another PC), her last living and accessable family member, because of what he'd done.

So I don't think I get too much into stereotypes. In fact my chars tend to be complex to the point that different groups of people will see totally different aspects of their personality.

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by The purpose of this thread wasn't to drown in stereotypes,

Originally Posted by I do tend to play mages most of the time, mainly because I prefer the mechanics, and because on the mud I play mages have more opportunity to be social than fighters.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by When I create a char, I do at least enough of their history to explain how they got to where the game dumps out newbies, and develop it more as time and circumstance allows. Then I figure out how my char reacted to events in their history, and how it flavors their interactions in the world today.

This is an approach that I've seen a multitude of players take, and it seems to be one that works. Often times, the flash of satori that helps a player to develop their character's background is spurred and assisted by the interactivity on a MU*. On the other hand, this can be an excuse and an escape for players that often results in either melodrama or an unconvincing character. Take, for example, a character who has not charted out a personal history and has verbally assaulted a character of a higher rank (because the player has defined their 'personality' as subordinate.)
When arrested or questioned by the authority, the player decides that their must be reasons why their character is in trouble and creates a scenario where the character suffered abuse in the past which is the reason for being a subordinate. The result is melodramatic and contrived - I've seen it happen multiple times on the three RP MU*s that I served as an RPA on and I'm comitted to having my players avert this with The Cathyle Project.

How? There's a plethora of methods that the administration of a game environment can take to ensuring that the characters in their realm are well thought-out ahead of time. The traditional (and simplest) method is to install an application-based creation system. This works well - it weeds out players based on stereotypes and ensures that they are creating a character pertinent to the thematic information provided. It also can have negative side-effects, from a diminished playerbase to what newbies (both to the game and roleplaying in general) will describe as an 'elitist environment.'

So there's other methods:
1) Ensure that you have provided plenty of thematic information on your website, within helpfiles and other foyers accessible to new players. Give a history, show varying factions and organizations, emphasize what makes your theme specifically different from the stock. For reference: Armaggedon RPI, Outremer MUX and Wes Platt's Join the Saga worlds all do an outstanding job of this.

2) Incorporate this thematic information into the character creation process. If you aren't using an application-based system, it's neccessary to weave thematic documents into the creation process. This also makes the process of learning about a world interactive - a technique that always builds player interest - especially if they feel that the information gleaned from reading will help them make better choices for their character.

3) Provide them with an instant roleplaying opportunity. Whether this is by flagging willing players as RP/Newbie emissaries, having a staff member contact the new player when they enter the game, or placing characters in an RP-intensive area/room when they begin, the intial RP scenario is invaluable. It allows new players to ask questions (both IC and OOC) and provides an example of the RP atmosphere that they're expected to fit into.

I apologize for side-tracking.

Originally Posted by So I don't think I get too much into stereotypes. In fact my chars tend to be complex to the point that different groups of people will see totally different aspects of their personality.

This thread might be better named: desribe one of your favorite characters. And no, it isn't a matter of simple semantics.

[Kallekins]

First, on the original topic of the post:
I try to make my chars as different from me as possible. That is the challenge of roleplaying. I tend to favor happy-go-lucky types. They're just a lot more fun to be, and it is a game! When I have a char that is more melancholy, or if something sad for her is going on in game, I just find myself not really wanting to play. Bitter and passionately angry can also be fun (if exhausting). I just steer clear of depressed.
There are always some aspects of my personality that I can't quite weed out of my chars, quirks that I don't even notice, being brilliant also the rp style. I guess I do decently at it, since people generally have much difficulty guessing my alts.
On good vs evil duality:
Good vs evil can work as a theme, especially on a fantasy mud. It is a standard element in high fantasy, and it works for a lot of excellent literature, providing a driving force for the protagonist and a sense of importancy. I just dislike when muds have coded alignment, and enforce rp to follow their ideals of what 'good' and 'evil' should act like. And I dislike when people play evil like they know they are evil, cackling and smiling darkly and going mwahahaha. Evil people should think they are good and the good people are evil, and both sides do evil things to achieve what they believe are good.
On archetypes:
Archetypes also have their roots in good literature, because they do work. I don't think it is so bad to base a char on an archetype (depending on just how tired it is) as long as they expand, twist, or somehow change it to make it a little different. The most important shaping events that define your char should happen in-game, and you should always be willing to change, to be shaped by what happens. Start simple, grow complex.
On a side topic:

3) Provide them with an instant roleplaying opportunity. ÊWhether this is by flagging willing players as RP/Newbie emissaries, having a staff member contact the new player when they enter the game, or placing characters in an RP-intensive area/room when they begin, the intial RP scenario is invaluable. ÊIt allows new players to ask questions (both IC and OOC) and provides an example of the RP atmosphere that they're expected to fit into.
(um, this is supposed to be a quote from Falconer, but I have no idea how to make the quotes work so I apoligise if it isn't proper)
I so totally agree with this. I've quit what are probably very good RPI's just from not having anything to do. Especially if it is a game without quests or much combat, a newbie can find herself with nothing to do before getting the "in" with the rp cliques. But this is something more for the players to do than the staff. Spend more time in public areas, especially those near where newbies enter. Clans or guilds should appoint liasons to convert and brainwash the young. And don't think you are helping newbies by giving them money or taking them hunting. It is much more valuable to roleplay with them, even by being mean. Make them feel like part of the world, take them seriously, and give them a reason to keep playing.

[Aeneas]

I play serious (or so i am told) characters only. While we have align imped, i do actually look little at it (mostly eq). I play calm and resourceful guys mostly. Rarely really angered and even when do usually calm down fast. OH, and their lazy and love to talk (and argue according to some).Due to that their fairly social and deal with others with respect, unless the person has done something my char disapproves.
    Where they mostly differ. One takes bride in his abilities, and likes to challenge other players, he is also slightly paranoid about losing. Another likes to be cryptic; give help in the forms of hints, riddles and counter questions. He hates not knowing about things, and feels great satisfaction about knowing things most dont.
  As of background, i make them related to the realm. Never royal, however also not bakers etc. They have natural wish to adventure. That does not mean necessary like take your stuff and leave home, mostly actually forced due to some (bad) events.

[ManiacMana]

I love RPG's and I played many.My style is quite clear:my chars are good mages.The thing that made me post here is that the discussion has started in a certain way and it became about good vs. evil.I have some words to say about this:there IS good and evil but the most important thing is that a character should be able to get from evil to good ONLY by redemption.The classification of good or evil chars should be done by the way they perform they're deeds and if a good char has done ONE evil deed he/she/it should automaticly become evil

[Santrilla]

Difficult to say for me. I find it a lot easier to play a character that is similar to my attitude in real life (although, oddly enough, I prefer roleplaying females; go figure.) They're open-minded, sociable people, but they always have some dark inner self that powers any evil act they might commit. My characters are almost indefinitely mages, as I find the whole "get a big sword and smash them over the head with it" style of playing highly tedious. Whereas, when playing a mage, I can be much more inventive; I can use my intelligence and magic in a variety of ways to reach my goal.

Sometimes, though, I go for a different class just for variety's sake. For example, I've been known to play assassins, simply because the idea of hiding in the shadows and slaying a foe before they notice you has always appealed to me. I've also been a cleric, because I like to heal others.

As for race, I'm nearly always an elf (or elf-subrace, usually Drow). They're intelligent, they're beautiful, and they kick some serious butt. Dwarves and gnomes are sometimes my race of choice for clerics (as clerics are partially fighters, so a bit of strength is useful), but more often than not I stick with elvies.

[Rytorth]

Eh...my chars are very varied. And usually in such a way that they avoid crossing each other's paths - heck, most of the time, my chars don't even know of each others' existence.

Anyways...one of my main chars tends to be about as off-the-wall as you can get with out being out-and-out insane at times - while at other times she's very serious. And then again, there's the times when she's uber-bloodthirsty...and she's fairly knowledgable about the human body. Enough so that, should she choose, she can torture you if you cross her but she doesn't feel like killing you yet. Then, with another switch of mood, she's trying to lure guys into bed with her with varying success (not random guys - guys she does know. Which is why she has varying amounts of success.) She's 6'5" and still growing (I plan to have her stop around 7' or so.. ) and she's fond of blades. She favors an outfit of tight, black leather and, by some people's standards (read, most guys' standards, ) she's attractive - very much so. And she knows it.
She has no blood related family - due to her bio (read, her player's laziness and general unwillingness to play parents ) her parents were taken out by a Hutt and her mother became a slave. So her closest friends she leads have become her family instead - although she'd never admit that any of them but one have really become like family to her. Partially because she's afraid that she's turning them into her family to fill that gap - and preying on that fear is about as intelligent as provoking a snake; it makes her angry and prone to attack.
Few people actually know much about her past - and she changes aliases as easily as some people change hairstyles. She also has very little schooling - about the same amount as your average seven year old would have. But, despite this, she has her own ship and leads a group of outlaws.
She also tends to be a trouble-magnet for some reason or other and if she's not healing up from one injury or another, she's getting ready to head into a fight again. Which is part of what makes it so fun to RP her...the fact that one person can tick off so many people...

[Serpentia]

Hmm... I'm that kind of person that puts a little bit of myself in a character too, no matter what alignment people see them as or how others think those characters perceive the concept of laws. It's normally just a little thing or two, like a pet peeve or a favorite thing. I usually start with race/sex/class. I prefer to have a little history of how the character grew up and what all has happened to that character to mold it the way it is going to be once I am done and ready to role-play it. Some times I don't like the concept of labeling my characters good, evil, or neutral. I let the other people role-play their characters in interaction with mine and make their own decision on how they see mine. For example, I play a feral elf child that I have classed as a warrior, but she is more of a survivalist. Other people around her have different views of her. The mayor of the main city thought she was a horrible troublemaker and caused a lockdown of the city, just because she was chasing citizens and guards, trying to get them to play. Where as, another person thought she was an embodiment of innocence, having not been touched by any religious or political ideals or even civilization itself. On the other hand I play an 'evil' character that has had a rather tragic life and has been labeled evil by the people of the realm due to the way of life she has chosen. There are some very small points of 'light' in that character if anyone ever got to rping with me about it, then it would be more well known. I play so-called good characters too, but not as often. I get bored with them. Though I am currently playing a forest-runner ranger in a tabletop AD&D game that could be considered good. I would rather say she is kind-hearted and has a sense empathy with agreeable beings (translate as anyone not trying to kill her or her friends or that can be reasoned with not to).
Well, though as stated, this thread wasn't started as a good/evil/whatever thing and I seem to be going off on that tangent. Mainly because the words of others here have appealed to me concerning the concept.
I guess I could just say that my style is to start with the basis of taking a random aspect of me and then twisting it about into something new and different. Like I could start up a character and say... okay, he will be antisocial, but why? certainly not for the same reason -I- would be; or she will be very mischievous, but not in the same nature I myself would be. I don't like making a character too much like me... as said by many other people... I play as myself everyday in real life, so why should I do so in worlds full of mythological creatures, starships, and extra-planar dimensions? That is why I prefer not to play humans either. I mainly play as elves, but I've played as a duergar (subterranean dwarf), a pixie, and a race I custom made for a special game. I also plan to add more to that list sooner or later.

[Greenstorm]

A lot of people I know have a tendancy to play characters with some common thread running through them, be it gender, power-hunger, race, position in live, sense of curiosity, strong emotional depth, etc. It's something that I think about sometimes, because I do know that when I started roleplaying I thought you were a bad roleplayer if you couldn't play every character under the sun, and if you tended to like playing one kind of character more than another.

I don't think that way anymore, mostly because I've taken a look around the community and seen that there are a lot of different people out there. Some people can play a lovely, oh, child character, but never play any other kinds. And if I'm enjoying RPing with them I don't see any reason to judge their RP bad based on other characters they may or may not have. But even though that's been overturned I do look through my characters often, trying to find patterns in them: I think similarities between my different characters and between my characters and myself are interesting.

So what's my roleplaying style?

I play a lot of outsider characters -- that is, characters that are in some sense alien to the society in which they find themselves. I suppose if you want to take it down to the archtypical 'raised by wolves' sort of thing you can, but I do tend to be more subtle than that.

One of my mu*es has a whole bunch of different races, so it's not hard to play a literal alien there looking at all these strange people doing inexplicable things. It's not completely out of line to say that that's some sort of expression of my personality in there, highly exaggerated.

Sometimes it's a little more complex -- setting a character up so that they don't own any society at all and so they're halfway between the two, accepting some parts of one and some of another. That causes some fun conflicts within the character, and often drives the way they approach intimacy and just generally their self-image.

Taking a character outside their complacent zone like that is maybe the biggest thing I do, and I suppose it's because it makes the characters easy to play for me. Since they're actively thinking about the society around them I do too, and I don't slip so easily into 22nd century human habits.

My characters all tend to have a very strong streak of responsibility, something which is often problematic for me. Whatever it is they feel responsible to, be it to a parent, to a world, to their business, to their friends, orto upholding a particular moral code, the responsible streak tends to bind them to something, and thus to leave them less free to go anywhere and associate with anyone. Good RP, you might say, but not always so fun.

Sometimes I reverse the outsider perspective and create a character who is so embedded intheir own society that they can't see outside of it. This is a lot of fun, but unless there are other people playing the same sort of character it can also be difficult: singleminded belief can look like arrogance to many of the worldly, all-tolerant characters that show up from time to time and that tolerance tends not to extent to a tolerance of intolerance. Still, it's wonderful to dive into a character who has no ambiguities in their head, who really believes something.

And certainly all my characters are very passionate in some way about something. Perhaps this ties in with a streak of responsibility, but it's more that any character who doesn't really care about something is uninteresting to me. I'm fascinated by seeing what happens when someone gets what they really, really want, and I'm fascinated by seeing what happens when someone struggles for something they need with all their soul but probably can never get.

For some reason on the fantasy mu* I playa fairly even male/female mix, and on the sci-fi place I play mostly females. It started out simply because I'm terrible at remembering to use the right pronoun, but I think in the end has to do with what I see as a wider range of roles to play in a universe that has multiple planets vs. a fairly uniform feudal society -- there's no need to explore the differences that sex and gender cause, because there are so many other things to explore already.

Just some thoughts.

[Khamura]

I certainly fall in to the category of people who play with a certain theme to their characters -- less because I actively strive for characters that fit it, but rather because it is a wide field of interest. Most of my characters thus either are in position of power or want to achieve it, whatever form it may take: physical strength to overpower others, political or financial power to ascertain one's hegemony, magical or psionic power to awe and influence the feebleminded.

However, the most memorable character I have played thus far was a simple 'grease monkey'-type engineer, quite powerless in all of the aforementioned criteria, who fell victim to (and -- Stockholm syndrom? -- in love with) a sadistic, sociopathic telepath. The single scene meant to break him similarly broke her, and spelled week-long RP bliss for the other player and myself.