I personally like it when I see a character with quirks, but quirks that make sense. Being a neat freak, obsessing over their hair... just the little things that actual people have but that a lot of fantasy characters don' t seem to. I'm also a pretty large fan of people whose concept fits within or stretches lore a bit, but that don't go overboard. An example from another game was someone who used the Force to phase through solid matter. While the guy was an awesome RPer, the fact that his character was playing outside what I knew of the lore really threw me.
I just have to add something that does not make a good RPer. Terrible accents, they aren't interesting quirks, they're just annoying. Different ways of talking is fine, but for instance I remember somebody that just dropped every h in every word. Over the top accents are not good rp!
That can be extended to more than just accents, don't go too far over the top.
Edit: Not anybody current that I can think of with an over the top annoying accent. More thinking of some old no longer played characters that made my eyes bleed whenever their characters talked.
Another thing, similar to accents: quirks are awesome, but do not feel you have to constantly remind people of them. If your character's thing is chewing on their hair, don't make them do it every single time they speak/move/anything. People have memories! Even if it's someone you haven't roleplayed with before, it's okay. They'll get the picture.
(One of the many reasons that robot!Tacita went away is that I struggled hideously with repressing my desire to constantly remind people that she had no expression, which I did to the point that I annoyed myself with how often I mentioned it).
@Isune has the best advice... making changes, though, sometimes it's hard to come up with justifications for why your character would do X, or how to go about making it happen. On the one hand, you should play however you want, but I do believe good roleplayers should have a reason why they did X. It doesn't have to be logical or even consistent, necessarily, but it should be something understandable... Otherwise... well, as a bad personal example, I once had a character that switched to an enemy guild completely out of the blue, with no particular reason behind it. Which was fine up until some of the friends my character "abandoned" wanted to know why, and "I was bored" was a frustrating reason to try and justify(for me and them). I just think it would have been easier if I'd given it more thought beforehand!
I also think it's best(and often more fun) to roleplay character-feelings that I have myself, to the extent that I can(I haven't quite come around on the baby-sacrificing yet). We are interpreting the world through our character's eyes, but also through our own, so there are bound to be some similarities between them. I.E., if I'm not happy about a particular situation, chances are pretty good Kethaera isn't either. ...Of course, sometimes that leads to getting hurt OOCLY because of a bad IC reaction, but at least it's possible to keep the hurt feelings IC rather than confronting someone about it elsewhere. Because it is, after all, just a game.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Perfection, even in a fantasy world, is unattainable. Playing a character who has as many flaws as she has dazzling attributes will only serve to enhance your roleplaying experience, and I think it's important to think about what those flaws will be - at least in part - ahead of time.
Here's why: I could easily play Lisaera as a goddess who swoops down from the Havens and declares Herself too far above the mortal coil to care about love and strife, but that wouldn't be any fun for me at all. Instead, it's much more interesting to react to different stimuli (have any of you ever tried mentioning Fain with Lisaera listening in?) so that I can explore the flaws I know my character to have. I get to develop the full spectrum of anger, wrath, vengeance, and sorrow while still maintaining the extremely gentle side of Lisaera's bearing. She is a mother always, but some days, she's also the scorned crone or the broken-hearted maiden. That's way better than having to keep up the illusion of a stuffy effigy with divine power.
One million years ago, when I was still a mortal, it was easy to be swept away in the idea of building a perfect scholar or a brutal warrior. Flaws make you flawed, and who wants to play an imperfect character when real life is already full of imperfections? However, I'm here to tell you that the best roleplayed experiences I've ever had have come from knowing what upsets my make-believe character and allowing for these interactions. Did the book I was writing fail? Rather than keeping a cool head, I let my character be upset, which led to some pretty interesting reactions from her confidants. Did my warrior always do the noble thing? Heck no. The most fun I've ever had came from being a double agent spy. Talk about flawed personality!
To that end, a flaw doesn't necessarily have to be rooted in anger or sadness, or any strong emotion. Maybe your character is a little turned off by a certain color and slowly develops this into an obsessive battle against the color pink. Or maybe your character has a heart that's too big and simply cannot abide the suffering of creatures, so she works hard to convince her peers to save the innocent sharks.
This sort of character analysis is why I love playing games like this. When I log on, I'm an all-powerful Goddess Who can snuff out your life force with a thought, but I'm also a hardened-yet-hopeful woman who has been hurt and betrayed by love several times. We can't all be perfect like @Isune (just kidding - girl has just as much - if not more - crazy baggage, which makes talking to her so fun).
There is such a thing as too much of a good thing in this idea. I said that it's important to think about flaws ahead of time above, and I truly believe that. In the real world, we all live our imperfections daily. If you're hoping to work through some of your thoughts and feelings through the safety net of your character, then by all means - Lusternia can be incredibly therapeutic for that. However, be careful with this. It's so easy to let yourself live through your flaws on a loop in the game, which could actually perpetuate how you're really feeling. Instead of turning this hobby into an outlet for your real struggles, try going in another direction. Let your character have his or her own issues to work through so that you're distracted from your own.
It's so much easier - and in a lot of ways, more fulfilling - to sign on as a person who has a crazed love of butterflies than it is to log in to a character who is a mirror image of the life you're already living.
Gods are especially encouraged to have big, glaring flaws because the temptation towards perfection narrows your avenues of RP. How boring would it be to play (or serve) a God who is always correct, and always winning, and loved by everyone, and is always aware of when They are being unreasonable? Gods are all-powerful, but they're not all perfect. (In fact, no one criticizes the Divine more than, well... the other Divine. It is basically Gossip Goddess up here in the Havens, all day, every day.)
I just have to add something that does not make a good RPer. Terrible accents, they aren't interesting quirks, they're just annoying. Different ways of talking is fine, but for instance I remember somebody that just dropped every h in every word. Over the top accents are not good rp!
That can be extended to more than just accents, don't go too far over the top.
Edit: Not anybody current that I can think of with an over the top annoying accent. More thinking of some old no longer played characters that made my eyes bleed whenever their characters talked.
Right, think accents are awful... >,>
EDIT: Thick accents are bad too. And you might want to avoid Bandeon. A poor decision ten years ago has led to the accent he has now.
I didn't actually realize your character HAD an accent when I posted right afterwards. Haha, foot meet mouth.
Point was mostly quirks/accents/whatever are cool, but there's such a thing as too much. Also random quirks/accents without any depth don't really add much of anything.
(have any of you ever tried mentioning Fain with Lisaera listening in?)
Not yet
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
I've always found it easier to roleplay "evil" characters because they're so interesting - evil characters can have plots of their own, petty vengeances, snide rivalries, dark ambitions. "Good" characters are limited by having to work for the greater good. I once played a Mag alt and was astonished at how much easier it was to basically breathe RP.
(clan): Falmiis says, "Aramelise, verb, 1. adorn with many flowers."
Good characters can absolutely have ambitions and plots of their own! Wealth, power, fame, all those things are basic desires. Alignment just tilts them a little bit, changes why people want them and how they go about trying to find them. One might want to rule to help bring society in line with their vision of perfection, for example. That vision might be hordes of slaves grovelling in front of the leader's throne, or it might be to lead a society to peace and plenty, or something else less simplisticly exampleish. And besides, everyone is out for personal gain sometimes. Portius may place a high value on the good of the state (to a great extent because it's a system that puts him at the top for doing what he likes to do anyway, a very personal gain type motivation for working towards the greater good) but that doesn't preclude trying to make himself more famous for his work than his peers. Often, the two goals line up!
Or take rivalries. Wanting to be better at something than someone doesn't discriminate based on good and evil. Portius is very vain about his achievements, and he likes it when people tell him how great he is for doing great things. He might not sabotage a rival to make himself look better, since he isn't that kind of person, but he is willing to downplay their achievements relative to his own a little bit in social situations, and he'll absolutely work to be better than them!
There's even room for revenge. Some good types would avoid it, but it's very easy to think of people who've wronged you as bad people, and then your revenge can be virtuous. Going to my wonderful example character of Portius again, he has a list of people he hates. An actual list, on paper. Some of them are enemies of the state, so there's definitely no conflict between Hallifaxian ideals and hating them. But others? There's a teenaged girl named Cosette on that list. Every interaction he's had with her has ended in anger and conflict. Portius won't kill her or anything, of course. She's Hallifaxian, and that's not his job. But if an opportunity ever comes up for him to get her sentenced to reeducation, Portius will probably take it. And you better believe that if he ever ends up in a position to give her orders (managing a work detail or something) she'll get all the worst parts of the job all to herself. It's kind of petty, but it doesn't conflict with ideas of the greater good from the Hallifaxian perspective.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
Not really. Llewell is a Seren, and would gladly team up with Glomdoring to eradicate the cities (Especially Gaudiguch). "Greater good" can be seen in so many ways, like a paladin who crusades to kill all the viscanti children he can find so they won't grow up to kill celestians, or a Researcher who experiments on furrikin in hopes of making them more resilient "for their own good".
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Gods are especially encouraged to have big, glaring flaws because the temptation towards perfection narrows your avenues of RP. How boring would it be to play (or serve) a God who is always correct, and always winning, and loved by everyone, and is always aware of when They are being unreasonable?
To be fair, a God who was always right and always winning wouldn't be loved by everyone. I'd say they're likely going to get hated by the majority out of sheer scorn and malice.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
I have not always been considered the best roleplayer but my character is very separate from me now. She is far more outgoing and snarky than I am - the best suggestion for those who have trouble separating themselves is to roleplay as someone opposite to yourself I've found.
As far as good roleplay you really have to approach it with an open mind - RP is incredibly diverse and can end so many ways.
My advice in addition to most of what has been said is to try and be creative, especially with things you've not been told about or shown yet. Creativity is one reason why I love RP so much.
As an example, it's not secret Haezon loves the stage and wants to have stage-babies with it, but when behind the stage with someone, they can't see you make illusions and such, so it is just you standing there, and them standing there.
To combat this, I came up with my interpretation of how the stage works, vis a vis, levers. Lots and lots of levers, some buttons and maybe a pressure pad. Pull this lever, YELLOW. Pull this lever, SHOUTING. Press that button, AWESOME. Pull both levers? TELLS. Even letting them see you creating some illusions can help things along by placing them in emotes.
@Dramshanks had an interpretation too where he sees it as using mirrors to create illusions, props and blah, so he probably emotes that.
If you find yourself doing something that is hard to role-play with, improvise and be creative to add more.
(It's been mentioned before, but when disciplining someone or telling them off, it is possible to make it fun for the other person too. If you just say 'You did wrong, disfavour' then it's over in a minute. If you converse, discuss, explain and ask for input, both of you have fun. I know I prefer being told why Haezon screwed up rather than just being told 'you're an idiot.'
In the end, a good role-player has to be able to enjoy themselves and be engaging.
Alright guys, I promised you a wall of text and a wall of text you shall have. Let's talk about characterization, which applies both to roleplaying and writing!
What matters more than anything else is characterization that leads to actions. Your character can have all the deep dark secrets in the world, but if they don't have an effect on how he acts, when played, they don't actually matter. Same thing goes with backstory. It doesn't do a whole lot of good if it doesn't lead to you doing something. That doesn't mean you have to tell people about it all the time. If it influences your choice of actions, then it can be useful. And telling people about it is itself an action, so talking about that backstory can be useful, too. A lot of people seem to feel like they need huge backstories and piles of secrets and whatnot that, in the end, don't really effect anything. This is a stumbling block for some people when it comes to, well, characterizing. They want depth, but they don't want to do a huge history. That's alright! There's an easier way that works out to be a lot more useful in practice.
There's an RPG system called FATE that turned this into a core mechanic, and I'm going to use their terminology here. A character has some number of aspects which are core points of characterization, the character's defining traits. These are big, important traits, not little things like appearance, unless of course appearance is important to that character (it usually is not.) They get snappy names to really hammer home the nature of the aspect, and to make them memorable. In FATE, there are some game mechanics that encourage people to act according to these aspects. That doesn't exist in Lusternia, obviously, but it's stilll a good way to structure a character. When deciding what to do, look at your list of aspects and see if any of them seem relevant, and act accordingly. That's not to say you always have to follow them. There could be other situational factors involved, after all! But they do provide a very strong place to start thinking about things, and generally following them is a good way to stay reasonably consistent without acting by rote.
You don't want too many aspects. These are big picture type thing, after all, and having too many dilutes the characterization too much (Some complexity is good. Excessive complexity is not. This can be a hard line to find, and it depends on the type or roleplaying/writing that's happening.) FATE uses five aspects for a player character, and that's a good number to stick around. Maybe use a little more, maybe use a little less, but stay in that ballpark. FATE also kind of elevates two of them above the others in the character creation process, a core concept and the trouble, which in the context of the RPG is the big one that causes problems for that character. These are a little less applicable to something like Lusternia, but can be useful to keep in mind nonetheless.
Let's do Portius as an example!
The Lord-Librarian- Portius is a peer. This is probably the single most important part of his characterization. He's at the very top of Hallifaxian society, and he got there through his own merit. He's aware of his status, and he doesn't like it when people don't respect it. That can be devaluing his work or his position, or it can be from claiming to be high status without having done anything in the arts/sciences. This covers his vanity, his pride, but also his dedication to being good at things, because that is what it is to be a peer. That's the crux of this aspect. He's a peer, he knows it, and he makes a point of acting accordingly.
Glory to the Collective- Portius is a devoted Hallifaxian nationalist. He cares about its economic health and so forth, but he's mostly concerned with making sure it's glorious. He recognizes that he's one of the most public people in Hallifaxian culture, and he revels in doing that much to build Hallifax's reputation. Even with practical matters, like industrialization, Portius cares just as much about making sure Hallifax is better than other nations as he does about the actual benefit to the city.
The Sublime Theorem-Beauty comes from comprehension. Truth is beauty. Thus, scientific research is the pursuit of beauty as much as it is any practical knowledge. This aspect, more than anything else, is Portius as the pure scientist. This is Portius alone in his lab, or presenting a lecture, marvelling at the sheer beauty of reality as it is understood. He is a peer because he is a scientist. He is a scientist because knowing things is magnificent.
A Civilized Man is a Virtuous Man-To shy from technology is foolishness. Willful ignorance is a sin. Those are both problems for the forestals. He might like an individual one here or there (Remember what I said about being able to break away from aspects sometimes? This is it!) but on the whole, they are pathetic savages. You can be evil without living in the forests, like Gaudiguchis are, but you cannot be good without living in a city. Ultimately, those luddites are worse than Celestines or Magnagorans. We can use them, but we can use horses, too. Doesn't mean that they're people.
Virtue is a Choice-Being good or evil comes down to your choices. If you live in the forest, or in Gaudiguch, you do it by choice. You could leave. But you haven't, you chose not to. That means you're choosing to be morally worse than him. That makes him pretty harsh on moral failings. But at the same time, if you can choose to be evil, you can also choose to be good. That means there is always a chance for a person to chose virtue and redeem themselves. You have to be wary of them, because it could be a trick, and sometimes it's just too dangerous to trust them, but it can happen. There is always hope.
That covers the things about Portius that actually matter pretty thoroughly. Him disapproving of Zyphora being married to Turnus? I'm invoking (the FATE term for choosing to use an aspect) A Civilized Man is a Virtuous Man to hate Turnus and Virtue is a Choice to be really hard on Zyphie about it. After all, she's letting her emotions drive her to consort with a confounded savage when she could just control herself and make a better choice! Mad at Cosette for disrespecting the peerage? Naturally, since he is The Lord-Librarian!
There's an absence in that list of aspects that some of you might have noticed. There isn't anything that refers to him being in @Isune order, even though he's in the Grand Salon and everything. That's because him following Isune isn't a terribly important part of his character. Leaving it wouldn't significantly change how he acts. He follows a goddess of beauty because he has strong ideas about The Sublime Theorem, but those ideas cause him to worship Isune, not the other way around. If there was a god that was more openly about that kind of thing, he'd drop Isune (who is occasionally kind of dismissive about science in a way that bothers Portius) in a heartbeat. Same thing if she ever said something really anti-sciencey.
And that's Portius, as expressed through the aspect system. It's not everything about him. It's the important things, the parts that are really relevant to deciding what to do. Try putting your character through it. Makes you decide what's really important to the characterization.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
I've always found it easier to roleplay "evil" characters because they're so interesting - evil characters can have plots of their own, petty vengeances, snide rivalries, dark ambitions. "Good" characters are limited by having to work for the greater good. I once played a Mag alt and was astonished at how much easier it was to basically breathe RP.
Viravain, Lady of the Thorns shouts, "And You would seize Me? Fool! I am the Glomdoring! I am the Wyrd, and beneath the cloak of Night, the shadows of the Silent stir!"
Being a goodie-character is just as fun to roleplay as an evil-character. Just don't buy into all the talk about liberty and rights and everyone having a say that good-oriented organizations try to espouse. I, personally, enjoy trying to play at being a small-minded, ignorant, Light-fearing citizen who doesn't know anything about outside influences or forces because the status quo enjoys enforcing the "Light = Good, Taint = Bad: that's all you ever need to know" mentality.
I've always found good characters far more fun to play than evil ones. It makes zealotry easy to justify, it's fun playing self-righteous or close-minded bigots, and it leads to more conflicts of intent and morality. Evil characters need more of a motivation to care. I only play Kethaera cause she believes she is on the good side.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I think there are more sides to good character roleplay than simply this self-righteousness and zealotry. If you are archetypically "Good" then there is room for interesting moral conundrums. I think this is precisely why Nott is so fun for me to play: she is generally a nice person, she doesn't fit the bill for a wyrden "I have no mercy" mentality. But I think when your character is in an environment like Glomdoring, you get the chance to see how your "good"-ness either changes or you figure out how the Wyrd adapts for you.
I'm curious when people say good character, are they talking about their actions and deeds fall into a stereotypical "good" alignment? Or that they're absolute bastards but think they're actually doing the right thing?
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
One of the things I love most about roleplay is the unknown. Some people like to map out their storylines in advance and coordinate with other people before they play it all out, but I personally love the uncertainty that comes with interacting with people who don't know what I want for my character. It forces me to adapt and think on the fly, and really get into Lavinya's head and ask myself 'how is she going to react to that spanner in the works???'. I find it really fun. I don't think I've ever written a full sermon or ritual - I will have a rough idea in my head or a beginning, then I just let it flow from there.
So I think part of being a good roleplayer is having a blend of both - the ability to plan ahead and have goals and direction for your character but also being flexible enough to adapt and adjust to unplanned eventualities and let them also build your character.
I also have to agree with some others that have mentioned it - some of the most amazing roleplay I've ever been involved in has been so incredibly gut-wrenching and upsetting for my character. You have to really remember it's just a character you're torturing, but it can be so intense and satisfying and goooood. I try to think of it like a book, if everything was happy and nothing ever went wrong, or there were never mistakes or sad times or tough decisions or tragedies it would probably be a really boring read. Mildly entertaining, but overall boring. I do think you should have fun with whatever you do (It's a game!), but being prepared to throw your character under a proverbial bus sometimes can be really, really fun (and can make for a really rich, deep character).
Really? Half of them seem to come across as xenophobic genocidal nutjobs, which does reflect itself in a considerable portion of the organisation's playerbase. The thing with every org is there's good and evil in all of them (yes even Mag/Celest) it's all entirely dependant on point of view, and where your personal IRL opinions skew perception.
Ultimately there is no good org, the Light isn't the same Light you'd see in other RPG settings which is designed as a force for unquestionable good. There's more of a moral ambiguity in Lusternia, which makes it acceptable to play a character alignment without really being wrong* to the organisation's themes and ideals. Playing an evil character who is going to be hated can be fun, so long as people remember the seperation between character and player. I take pride in Karlach being a bastard, for example, it's a character doing what he believes is the way to get results in a "the end justifies the means" way.
On the same approach being good can also become reviled, because too often in games I've seen people play "good" characters that have the snobbery of "I'm good, so I'm better than you." If you were good, you would be humble and not be an egotistic boasting ass
*Granted it's tricky to be chaotic evil in Celest or lawful good in Magnagora, but not impossible!
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
Really? Half of them seem to come across as xenophobic genocidal nutjobs, which does reflect itself in a considerable portion of the organisation's playerbase. The thing with every org is there's good and evil in all of them (yes even Mag/Celest) it's all entirely dependant on point of view, and where your personal IRL opinions skew perception.
Ultimately there is no good org, the Light isn't the same Light you'd see in other RPG settings which is designed as a force for unquestionable good. There's more of a moral ambiguity in Lusternia, which makes it acceptable to play a character alignment without really being wrong* to the organisation's themes and ideals. Playing an evil character who is going to be hated can be fun, so long as people remember the seperation between character and player. I take pride in Karlach being a bastard, for example, it's a character doing what he believes is the way to get results in a "the end justifies the means" way.
On the same approach being good can also become reviled, because too often in games I've seen people play "good" characters that have the snobbery of "I'm good, so I'm better than you." If you were good, you would be humble and not be an egotistic boasting ass
*Granted it's tricky to be chaotic evil in Celest or lawful good in Magnagora, but not impossible!
Admittedly, all of this right here is why I enjoy Lusternia these days. It's a lot more complicated than good vs evil. I tend to think of other games I've played where the lines were more clear, or the "evil" rp was SO evil it was hard to justify. In such cases, it's easier to play zealous good characters because they really are fighting for a good cause, even if occasionally their methods are questionable(which keeps it from getting boring).
But I agree with you that there isn't a good and evil organization. I think whoever it was that came up with Lusternia's concept did a fairly good job giving each org something to fight for, rather than against. Mostly. Ambiguous characters tend to be more interesting.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
I've sorta avoided posting in this thread, because I've always personally disliked pigeonholing RP into "good" or "bad" labels, or the idea that there is a more "successful" way of creating certain character alignments (my "good" character has this trait and that trait, and therefore it is better than that "good" character). My opinion is that, RP doesn't stop at your character creation. The kind of character you decide to play isn't even all that important - it's how you present the character that matters. Your character can be as simple as a stereotypical, non-original, one-dimensional goody-two-shoes. And yet such characters are every bit as important, and as integral, to the roleplaying environment and scene as an unique, awe-inspiring, riddled-with-flaws and bat-shit-crazy character. In fact, it would be fairly irritating if everyone you met had to have some kind of completely different and never seen before trait or flaw. Of course, that is not to say such characters take away anything from the scene - such unique projections and roles are what makes multi-user roleplaying games so immersive, so attractive. I just don't think it's very fair to say, "Your character is too one-dimensional. Maybe you should think of a flaw or trait, something unique... like what everyone else also has to have."
For me, if there ever is a way to qualify "good" roleplay over "bad", it would be in the execution of the role, whatever it may be. It doesn't really matter how interesting, attractive, unique or amusing your character is, but if you end up hogging the delicate balance of give-and-take that comes with emoting with other real people, you end up creating a boring scene. Similarly, no matter how cookie-cutter your character is conceived of as or played as, if you can make an interaction fun, it'll be much better than any kind of fad-like trait you can saddle your character with.
One of the foundations to make an enjoyable scene is to remember that you're writing a story with a partner. The narrative you create must be from the point of view of your character, of course, since you shouldn't be taking control of, or deciding, the emotions and reactions of onlookers - but it's possible, and in fact, desirable to consider their point of view in your emotes. A scene will go much more interesting for everyone involved if you create spaces in your narrative for the other party(ies) to fill. Rather than just describing nothing but your character's actions and emotions, I personally feel that an agreed upon degree of shared control is necessary for a fulfilling interaction that goes beyond writing a one-author novel (or short-story, as case may be). The feeling of connection and accomplishment when someone you're interacting with describes a part of your character's reaction without compromising your sense of immersion is key to going beyond routine or even mundane descriptions of events.
There are various ways to change an interaction with someone from being simply writing replies to descriptive passages into a joint effort to create a single continuous story, and there are a couple that I've found to be very helpful: Godmodding is something we want to avoid for obvious reasons and if your descriptions and emotes lock out any opportunity for the people you interact with from accessing your character, then they have no means of contributing to the narrative of your character without godmodding. Therefore, the only person with the ability to create the space needed for collaboration is the roleplayer who plays the character.
Conveying your character's habits and personality is more important than just painting a picture of your character - by giving hints of patterns, you allow others to pick up the brush and paint on your drawing board without destroying the picture you had in mind.
This is one reason why I started off with the long paragraph to play down a character's archetype above. Afterall, it is easier for others to predict what your character will do if you allow them to draw from the pre-established pool of stereotypes that we all share in our consumption of modern pop culture. The flip-side of a "boring" character is one that others can easily connect with, and with which scenes can move on from introducing and trying to gingerly feel out what makes the character tick. That's nothing wrong with having depth to a character or walling-off/creating some impenetrable mystery about your character. But if your character is such a frankenstein ball of uniqueness, then the majority of your interactions will be about describing your character and pulling tricks out of your magical hat of uniqueness. The first time you yank an T-Rex out of that hat, everyone might go wow. But by the eighth time, the trick loses its shine, even if it's a different dinosaur each time.
Things aren't as simple as just making a simple character, of course - but I believe it does help to not get too hung up on uniqueness. Instead, what any character, cookie cutter or not, should be concentrating on is to convey certain core or significant parts of your character's personality instead of trying to make the other party raise their eyebrows. They came to interact with you because they want to get to know you, not just to see a show. Choosing different ways to present your character will have a profound effect on the way other people (and therefore their characters) view yours, and that in itself is the uniqueness of each interaction.
Create a shared story by suggesting conflicts you would like to see arise.
The lifeblood of all narratives is the conflict, the problem. The basic premise that everyone has when they enter a drama is that someone is going to have to go "OH SHIT" at some point. Sometimes it's simple to create such situations by putting your character into them, by creating such situations yourself. But if you can allow your partners to do so for you, it goes a long way to making the scene that much more interactive. Creating your character involves more than knowing what motivates them - but also knowing what would make them cringe. And if you can convey these aspects to your partner without having to go OOC to tell them outright, you create the potential for them to put your character into such situations. Of course, at their own risk. If their thrown dart misses the mark, that in itself is something you (or your character) can then take advantage of.
Conflict doesn't have to be always about an identity crisis. If your character doesn't like tea (or the other character), you could describe that they "subtly" ignore offered beverages of that sort - subtly from your (and maybe their) character's point of view, but obvious to the players. This is a fairly common tactic used to raise drama and just very simply have a bit of bantering fun - and it's an example of suggesting the kind of conflict you are interested to see when you're interacting with others. If possible, leave an avenue for the other character to ignore it. After all, if your character spits in their face, they can't very well shrug it off. But if you phrase it in the right way, it becomes just a suggestion. For the tea example above, the other party doesn't have to react to it - they might miss the "subtle" action if they want to concentrate on something else instead.
Incorporate your partner's ideas into your character's changes.
One of the more satisfying things you can do for your roleplaying partner is to show them that they are having an impact. Afterall, this is a persistent roleplaying environment, not a sandbox MUSH, and if you can show the people who interact with you the visible impacts they are having on your character, it gives them a sense of accomplishment that will carry over to future scenes. I know people who take and keep detailed notes about past interactions and use that as a basis for every scene, and I won't be surprised if that's what some admins do with their shells or mob-pos events, and the aim of all this is to give your partner acknowledgement of their efforts. Simple things can go a long way to making a scene fun.
On the other hand, things don't always go right, and it can sometimes be
difficult to stomach the idea of having your character change in a way
that is outside of your own plans for them. Many of the "changes" or
"growth" that we put our characters through are carefully choreographed
from start to the end, or even planned out during character creation.
I'll have my character start as a genocidal, city-hating forestal, and
then turn him into a religious zealot in a city. I'll have my naive,
innocent young character turn into a hardened, no-holds-barred champion
fighter. All of these are fine, of course, but the flip side of such
railroaded plans is that it becomes difficult for us to consider
possible changes to our characters that go against what we originally
wanted them to look like. Sometimes, it may be worthwhile to go against
your own grain, and consider something totally outside of your agenda. To let something another character has done in relation
to, or directly on, your character develop them instead. It becomes icing on the cake when you take your roleplaying partners by surprise - either because they believed you won't have made such a change, or because they noticed your struggle to come to terms with it.
Naturally, all of this is on top of your own enjoyment - if you're not comfortable about something, you're not comfortable about it, and there's no reason to partake in it. The more open-minded you are, the easier it is to make your partners feel at ease with you, is all there is to it. At the end of the day, prioritizing your own fun is what matters, and if you can help make things more interactive for your partners while still having fun, it just makes it all the better.
Comments
Or take rivalries. Wanting to be better at something than someone doesn't discriminate based on good and evil. Portius is very vain about his achievements, and he likes it when people tell him how great he is for doing great things. He might not sabotage a rival to make himself look better, since he isn't that kind of person, but he is willing to downplay their achievements relative to his own a little bit in social situations, and he'll absolutely work to be better than them!
There's even room for revenge. Some good types would avoid it, but it's very easy to think of people who've wronged you as bad people, and then your revenge can be virtuous. Going to my wonderful example character of Portius again, he has a list of people he hates. An actual list, on paper. Some of them are enemies of the state, so there's definitely no conflict between Hallifaxian ideals and hating them. But others? There's a teenaged girl named Cosette on that list. Every interaction he's had with her has ended in anger and conflict. Portius won't kill her or anything, of course. She's Hallifaxian, and that's not his job. But if an opportunity ever comes up for him to get her sentenced to reeducation, Portius will probably take it. And you better believe that if he ever ends up in a position to give her orders (managing a work detail or something) she'll get all the worst parts of the job all to herself. It's kind of petty, but it doesn't conflict with ideas of the greater good from the Hallifaxian perspective.
Not really. Llewell is a Seren, and would gladly team up with Glomdoring to eradicate the cities (Especially Gaudiguch). "Greater good" can be seen in so many ways, like a paladin who crusades to kill all the viscanti children he can find so they won't grow up to kill celestians, or a Researcher who experiments on furrikin in hopes of making them more resilient "for their own good".
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
As far as good roleplay you really have to approach it with an open mind - RP is incredibly diverse and can end so many ways.
What matters more than anything else is characterization that leads to actions. Your character can have all the deep dark secrets in the world, but if they don't have an effect on how he acts, when played, they don't actually matter. Same thing goes with backstory. It doesn't do a whole lot of good if it doesn't lead to you doing something. That doesn't mean you have to tell people about it all the time. If it influences your choice of actions, then it can be useful. And telling people about it is itself an action, so talking about that backstory can be useful, too. A lot of people seem to feel like they need huge backstories and piles of secrets and whatnot that, in the end, don't really effect anything. This is a stumbling block for some people when it comes to, well, characterizing. They want depth, but they don't want to do a huge history. That's alright! There's an easier way that works out to be a lot more useful in practice.
There's an RPG system called FATE that turned this into a core mechanic, and I'm going to use their terminology here. A character has some number of aspects which are core points of characterization, the character's defining traits. These are big, important traits, not little things like appearance, unless of course appearance is important to that character (it usually is not.) They get snappy names to really hammer home the nature of the aspect, and to make them memorable. In FATE, there are some game mechanics that encourage people to act according to these aspects. That doesn't exist in Lusternia, obviously, but it's stilll a good way to structure a character. When deciding what to do, look at your list of aspects and see if any of them seem relevant, and act accordingly. That's not to say you always have to follow them. There could be other situational factors involved, after all! But they do provide a very strong place to start thinking about things, and generally following them is a good way to stay reasonably consistent without acting by rote.
You don't want too many aspects. These are big picture type thing, after all, and having too many dilutes the characterization too much (Some complexity is good. Excessive complexity is not. This can be a hard line to find, and it depends on the type or roleplaying/writing that's happening.) FATE uses five aspects for a player character, and that's a good number to stick around. Maybe use a little more, maybe use a little less, but stay in that ballpark. FATE also kind of elevates two of them above the others in the character creation process, a core concept and the trouble, which in the context of the RPG is the big one that causes problems for that character. These are a little less applicable to something like Lusternia, but can be useful to keep in mind nonetheless.
Let's do Portius as an example!
The Lord-Librarian- Portius is a peer. This is probably the single most important part of his characterization. He's at the very top of Hallifaxian society, and he got there through his own merit. He's aware of his status, and he doesn't like it when people don't respect it. That can be devaluing his work or his position, or it can be from claiming to be high status without having done anything in the arts/sciences. This covers his vanity, his pride, but also his dedication to being good at things, because that is what it is to be a peer. That's the crux of this aspect. He's a peer, he knows it, and he makes a point of acting accordingly.
Glory to the Collective- Portius is a devoted Hallifaxian nationalist. He cares about its economic health and so forth, but he's mostly concerned with making sure it's glorious. He recognizes that he's one of the most public people in Hallifaxian culture, and he revels in doing that much to build Hallifax's reputation. Even with practical matters, like industrialization, Portius cares just as much about making sure Hallifax is better than other nations as he does about the actual benefit to the city.
The Sublime Theorem-Beauty comes from comprehension. Truth is beauty. Thus, scientific research is the pursuit of beauty as much as it is any practical knowledge. This aspect, more than anything else, is Portius as the pure scientist. This is Portius alone in his lab, or presenting a lecture, marvelling at the sheer beauty of reality as it is understood. He is a peer because he is a scientist. He is a scientist because knowing things is magnificent.
A Civilized Man is a Virtuous Man-To shy from technology is foolishness. Willful ignorance is a sin. Those are both problems for the forestals. He might like an individual one here or there (Remember what I said about being able to break away from aspects sometimes? This is it!) but on the whole, they are pathetic savages. You can be evil without living in the forests, like Gaudiguchis are, but you cannot be good without living in a city. Ultimately, those luddites are worse than Celestines or Magnagorans. We can use them, but we can use horses, too. Doesn't mean that they're people.
Virtue is a Choice-Being good or evil comes down to your choices. If you live in the forest, or in Gaudiguch, you do it by choice. You could leave. But you haven't, you chose not to. That means you're choosing to be morally worse than him. That makes him pretty harsh on moral failings. But at the same time, if you can choose to be evil, you can also choose to be good. That means there is always a chance for a person to chose virtue and redeem themselves. You have to be wary of them, because it could be a trick, and sometimes it's just too dangerous to trust them, but it can happen. There is always hope.
That covers the things about Portius that actually matter pretty thoroughly. Him disapproving of Zyphora being married to Turnus? I'm invoking (the FATE term for choosing to use an aspect) A Civilized Man is a Virtuous Man to hate Turnus and Virtue is a Choice to be really hard on Zyphie about it. After all, she's letting her emotions drive her to consort with a confounded savage when she could just control herself and make a better choice! Mad at Cosette for disrespecting the peerage? Naturally, since he is The Lord-Librarian!
There's an absence in that list of aspects that some of you might have noticed. There isn't anything that refers to him being in @Isune order, even though he's in the Grand Salon and everything. That's because him following Isune isn't a terribly important part of his character. Leaving it wouldn't significantly change how he acts. He follows a goddess of beauty because he has strong ideas about The Sublime Theorem, but those ideas cause him to worship Isune, not the other way around. If there was a god that was more openly about that kind of thing, he'd drop Isune (who is occasionally kind of dismissive about science in a way that bothers Portius) in a heartbeat. Same thing if she ever said something really anti-sciencey.
And that's Portius, as expressed through the aspect system. It's not everything about him. It's the important things, the parts that are really relevant to deciding what to do. Try putting your character through it. Makes you decide what's really important to the characterization.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
So I think part of being a good roleplayer is having a blend of both - the ability to plan ahead and have goals and direction for your character but also being flexible enough to adapt and adjust to unplanned eventualities and let them also build your character.
I also have to agree with some others that have mentioned it - some of the most amazing roleplay I've ever been involved in has been so incredibly gut-wrenching and upsetting for my character. You have to really remember it's just a character you're torturing, but it can be so intense and satisfying and goooood. I try to think of it like a book, if everything was happy and nothing ever went wrong, or there were never mistakes or sad times or tough decisions or tragedies it would probably be a really boring read. Mildly entertaining, but overall boring. I do think you should have fun with whatever you do (It's a game!), but being prepared to throw your character under a proverbial bus sometimes can be really, really fun (and can make for a really rich, deep character).
Ultimately there is no good org, the Light isn't the same Light you'd see in other RPG settings which is designed as a force for unquestionable good. There's more of a moral ambiguity in Lusternia, which makes it acceptable to play a character alignment without really being wrong* to the organisation's themes and ideals. Playing an evil character who is going to be hated can be fun, so long as people remember the seperation between character and player. I take pride in Karlach being a bastard, for example, it's a character doing what he believes is the way to get results in a "the end justifies the means" way.
On the same approach being good can also become reviled, because too often in games I've seen people play "good" characters that have the snobbery of "I'm good, so I'm better than you." If you were good, you would be humble and not be an egotistic boasting ass
*Granted it's tricky to be chaotic evil in Celest or lawful good in Magnagora, but not impossible!
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
But I agree with you that there isn't a good and evil organization. I think whoever it was that came up with Lusternia's concept did a fairly good job giving each org something to fight for, rather than against. Mostly. Ambiguous characters tend to be more interesting.
For me, if there ever is a way to qualify "good" roleplay over "bad", it would be in the execution of the role, whatever it may be. It doesn't really matter how interesting, attractive, unique or amusing your character is, but if you end up hogging the delicate balance of give-and-take that comes with emoting with other real people, you end up creating a boring scene. Similarly, no matter how cookie-cutter your character is conceived of as or played as, if you can make an interaction fun, it'll be much better than any kind of fad-like trait you can saddle your character with.
One of the foundations to make an enjoyable scene is to remember that you're writing a story with a partner. The narrative you create must be from the point of view of your character, of course, since you shouldn't be taking control of, or deciding, the emotions and reactions of onlookers - but it's possible, and in fact, desirable to consider their point of view in your emotes. A scene will go much more interesting for everyone involved if you create spaces in your narrative for the other party(ies) to fill. Rather than just describing nothing but your character's actions and emotions, I personally feel that an agreed upon degree of shared control is necessary for a fulfilling interaction that goes beyond writing a one-author novel (or short-story, as case may be). The feeling of connection and accomplishment when someone you're interacting with describes a part of your character's reaction without compromising your sense of immersion is key to going beyond routine or even mundane descriptions of events.
There are various ways to change an interaction with someone from being simply writing replies to descriptive passages into a joint effort to create a single continuous story, and there are a couple that I've found to be very helpful: Godmodding is something we want to avoid for obvious reasons and if your descriptions and emotes lock out any opportunity for the people you interact with from accessing your character, then they have no means of contributing to the narrative of your character without godmodding. Therefore, the only person with the ability to create the space needed for collaboration is the roleplayer who plays the character.
This is one reason why I started off with the long paragraph to play down a character's archetype above. Afterall, it is easier for others to predict what your character will do if you allow them to draw from the pre-established pool of stereotypes that we all share in our consumption of modern pop culture. The flip-side of a "boring" character is one that others can easily connect with, and with which scenes can move on from introducing and trying to gingerly feel out what makes the character tick. That's nothing wrong with having depth to a character or walling-off/creating some impenetrable mystery about your character. But if your character is such a frankenstein ball of uniqueness, then the majority of your interactions will be about describing your character and pulling tricks out of your magical hat of uniqueness. The first time you yank an T-Rex out of that hat, everyone might go wow. But by the eighth time, the trick loses its shine, even if it's a different dinosaur each time.
Things aren't as simple as just making a simple character, of course - but I believe it does help to not get too hung up on uniqueness. Instead, what any character, cookie cutter or not, should be concentrating on is to convey certain core or significant parts of your character's personality instead of trying to make the other party raise their eyebrows. They came to interact with you because they want to get to know you, not just to see a show. Choosing different ways to present your character will have a profound effect on the way other people (and therefore their characters) view yours, and that in itself is the uniqueness of each interaction.
The lifeblood of all narratives is the conflict, the problem. The basic premise that everyone has when they enter a drama is that someone is going to have to go "OH SHIT" at some point. Sometimes it's simple to create such situations by putting your character into them, by creating such situations yourself. But if you can allow your partners to do so for you, it goes a long way to making the scene that much more interactive. Creating your character involves more than knowing what motivates them - but also knowing what would make them cringe. And if you can convey these aspects to your partner without having to go OOC to tell them outright, you create the potential for them to put your character into such situations. Of course, at their own risk. If their thrown dart misses the mark, that in itself is something you (or your character) can then take advantage of.
Conflict doesn't have to be always about an identity crisis. If your character doesn't like tea (or the other character), you could describe that they "subtly" ignore offered beverages of that sort - subtly from your (and maybe their) character's point of view, but obvious to the players. This is a fairly common tactic used to raise drama and just very simply have a bit of bantering fun - and it's an example of suggesting the kind of conflict you are interested to see when you're interacting with others. If possible, leave an avenue for the other character to ignore it. After all, if your character spits in their face, they can't very well shrug it off. But if you phrase it in the right way, it becomes just a suggestion. For the tea example above, the other party doesn't have to react to it - they might miss the "subtle" action if they want to concentrate on something else instead.
One of the more satisfying things you can do for your roleplaying partner is to show them that they are having an impact. Afterall, this is a persistent roleplaying environment, not a sandbox MUSH, and if you can show the people who interact with you the visible impacts they are having on your character, it gives them a sense of accomplishment that will carry over to future scenes. I know people who take and keep detailed notes about past interactions and use that as a basis for every scene, and I won't be surprised if that's what some admins do with their shells or mob-pos events, and the aim of all this is to give your partner acknowledgement of their efforts. Simple things can go a long way to making a scene fun.
On the other hand, things don't always go right, and it can sometimes be difficult to stomach the idea of having your character change in a way that is outside of your own plans for them. Many of the "changes" or "growth" that we put our characters through are carefully choreographed from start to the end, or even planned out during character creation. I'll have my character start as a genocidal, city-hating forestal, and then turn him into a religious zealot in a city. I'll have my naive, innocent young character turn into a hardened, no-holds-barred champion fighter. All of these are fine, of course, but the flip side of such railroaded plans is that it becomes difficult for us to consider possible changes to our characters that go against what we originally wanted them to look like. Sometimes, it may be worthwhile to go against your own grain, and consider something totally outside of your agenda. To let something another character has done in relation to, or directly on, your character develop them instead. It becomes icing on the cake when you take your roleplaying partners by surprise - either because they believed you won't have made such a change, or because they noticed your struggle to come to terms with it.
Naturally, all of this is on top of your own enjoyment - if you're not comfortable about something, you're not comfortable about it, and there's no reason to partake in it. The more open-minded you are, the easier it is to make your partners feel at ease with you, is all there is to it. At the end of the day, prioritizing your own fun is what matters, and if you can help make things more interactive for your partners while still having fun, it just makes it all the better.