Chars=Personality?

I was thinking about this for a while, and I wondered if anyone else noticed this.
I've noticed that my various role-playing characters all reflect different parts of my personality.
Also those who are in multiple role-playing games with me probably know me quite well due to my personality expressed through my characters. For example:

Burn (Matrix game)-Possibly my favorite Character, He is alot like me, exept maybe a little wilder, and he expresses the "Let's go blow sh*t up" side of me more.

Roan (Ush's Star Wars game)- He Is my first RP char ever, so he is almost identical in personality to me.

Palidan (Lotr game)- He is more of the intellectual side of me, He is more of a pacifist, tend's to think things through more.

Kydor (Rex's SW game)-He is the Evilest char. And that is what side of me he represents. He is my inner B*stard, the 'I'm gonna take you out" Guy.

Dent (DR's SW/Bounty Hunter game)- He is the leader in me, More in charge, and in control. Kinda blend of Kydor and Burn with the emphasis on Kydor.

What about you guys, Any thoughts?

I found that every character a player plays represents atleast one aspect of the players personality. all my characters show one main quality that they have incommon, one that I('d like to) have. namely being a leader when the situation calls for it.
(if you disagree wiv this statement lemme know 🙂)

the real Role Play challenge is in playing a character that is your total opposit it is really hard and doesn't feel right (I tried)

I found that out too, mainly by playing KOTOR, I first played it being the Light Side, then I found 95% of all the decisions and stuff easy to make and carry out the conseqenses, But when I played it again for the Dark side, The desision making and the general Evilness was harder to grasp.

Ahh me well say I ahh (OVERTHINK POWER MYSELF) like that kinda thing that im more powerful than someone kinda like vegeta from DBZ

I agree. My character Xornon Jay is from my book, and is what i was, am, and what i want to be as a person. When i thought him up for my book, i had to work him out to a T, so he's perfectly unperfect. He's got his flaws, but that only makes him all the more human.
His personalty is mine definatly though. Tends to be quiet, and observer, but will come out and speak his mind to ur face in a heart beat. I could go on forever, b/c of the amount of time that is behind him. But yes, my characters do take after me alot.

better not get you angry xornon or your probably gonna start arguing with me for hours isnt it good to know??

All of my RPG and dstory (apart from Dante) are based on my looks and quite alot of aspects from my personallity. Cloud (From the Matrix RPG) is probably the most like me.

Yuma(Ancient Egypt) is really spirited and always there to help but we are both stubborn.

Holly(Harry Potter) is very bookish and usually keeps to herself
although I love to read.

Rose(Never as It Seems) is very down to earth and will pick a fight when nescessary. I'm like her last quality.

Yuna(FFX-Unhosted) is very calm and I'm like her determined.

Gwen(Paddy's FFX Game) is stubborn and as I said earlier I am more like that.

Ally(Freddy's girls) is very loyal and I think that's what I want to be.

Holly(teens of elm street) is very friendly and I am much like that.

O'Neil(Never as It Seems) is demanding and strict and also sweet like me. Only the sweet part.
*That's all of them for now.

Decent role-playing should always be an extension of yourself. Even when playing a bad guy (assuming you are all generally nice people).

Bad guys in a game are difficult, because instinct is to just play a psycho and do whatever the heck you like. This becomes boring very quickly. Role-playing is a protagonist's game- as in you can only play the people wo are the centre of the 'film', playing an antagonist- or villain- is no good at all. An antagonist's job is not to have plot happen to him, but to aid the protagonist's plot, and this is the same in bookwriting, film making- and role-playing. But it is all the more relevant to role-playing because in a book you cannot help but follow what the book wants, whereas people often want to play the bad guys in a game.

The exception is when the bad guys are protagonists as well- for a film example, The Usual Suspects. There are not many role-playing franchises that this works with- Star Wars is the notable exception; with some effort, the bad guys can be just as interesting to play around with as the good- though there is still a risk of bad guys becoming fundamentally dull.

But with Matrix and Lord of the Rings? Nah. Doesn't work. Even though the Matrix has a very interesting villain he is still DEFINITELY an antagonist- he is part and parcel of the protagonist's plot.

There is a neat RPG that I play (though not in a while) called In Nomine, where you play either Angels or Demons. And that game is entirely dedicated to the concept of being able to play good or bad and goes to great length to overcome and explain the troubles of bad guy play. It is basically down to them having interesting personalities and motivations, and to have meaningful things to achieve. If all a bad guy can do is just 'bad things' like in your typical film... it's really just not worth playing.

So as I say, because they have to be interesting, even bad guys tend to be an extention of your personality- assuming the game you are playing is any good.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
I found that out too, mainly by playing KOTOR, I first played it being the Light Side, then I found 95% of all the decisions and stuff easy to make and carry out the conseqenses, But when I played it again for the Dark side, The desision making and the general Evilness was harder to grasp.

Yeah same here
Believe it or not, I actually felt bad when I stole the skull plate from that lady on Tattooine 😮

Heh, yeah, most of my RPG characters are like me, San (from the Matrix RPG) is probably the most, with her 'let's go kick some serious ass and don't piss me off or things will get nasty' attitude 😄

I think KOTOR was in error in having the set-up where your actions decide what side of the Force you are on; that system from Jedi Knight onwards has never worked right as far as I see it.

And indeed the fact that you simply do not want to take a lot of the evil choices makes the point- they are so damn petty anyway, it makes for a dull sort of evil. Did Palpatine rise to power as a Sith Lord by by low acts of fraud? No, in fact he's normally very nice indeed to everyone he meets. Very little of it what makes you a Dark Sider in KOTOR really gets to grips with WHY these people are evil, to me. A lot of the time in KOTOR, trying to play an evil guy you gain Light Side points when all you did something for was to get the experience. It does not tie into it at all...

In the end, in KOTOR your actions set your morality- it really should be the other way around, and that is beyond the capacity of a computer game to set (though maybe Black and White came close), so I think they should have just let you pick good or evil from the start. That would have involved a different plot, I know; it is more of a basic design decision.

I don't know... I agree with you mostly, but I found all the little side plots rather amusing, even if insulting someone doesn't make you fall to the dark side.

Black and White is a good game, but I never got very far in it--it just gets tiring, after awhile.

Yea that was the wierd part about KOTOR, but I never played Black & White soo...

Yes, B&W is lacking in long term play, but the theory of your play environment matching the morality of the player was a good one.

I think in a Star Wars game it's not worth trying to define Light or Dark on a scale, anyway. I mean, it's not as if there is a relative determination of good and evil, and everyone above a certain point is good and below it evil. I know people like character development in that vein but it just jarred badly for me, a blatant intrusion of the system over the gameplay. Light/Dark deserves more treatment than that.

It becomes very confusing, it seems good/evil is relative. If you are surronded by blatently evil, or bad people, than to be considered, good you would have to do much less thanif the standard was to do good things.

in jedi academy the going dark choice is pathetic, it depends on killing rosh or not, far to static should have been a lot more dynamic, take longer and go slower.... like killing too many innocent ppl (which I do all the time I KILL EVERYTHING)

Scary...

But yes indeed. It is far more complex than simply what you do. In my game I simply ignore that part of things- if a psychologist wants to deeply analyze of you to find out why you are the way you are, then I am sure he can come up with a 50 page essay on it, rather than "he did a few bad things." So part of the entry requirement for my SW game is thar you ARE either good or evil (else you would not be either a Jedi or Dark Sider), and then I explore what it means to be that, from there. Though not TOO deeply, as Star Wars isn't the Matrix. The gameplay is meant to be its own experience and everyone has settled into a decent niche- even Galder who, whilst is as thug-like as you can get, has developed a dynamic personality- though the trick there comes in what happens if there is no-one to give him orders.

I agree with it being the extension of your personality, to an extent. I like to play netrual(?) characters, or anoymous ones(Black Dawn). Although Ush, your games so far seem to have forced me to take a character much more based around me. I find it hard enough sorting out my own philosophies, never mind a fake set *mutter mutter* lol.

Black and white was good, but I found a few flaws in it.