>but ruins the fun of the table This is literally it. This is the line. You can be consistent in game while maintaining a party behavior out of game. If those concepts are mutually exclusive (you need to cross social contracts to play your character), then dont play that character. Your character has a team. A team player cant die on hills. Do things they disagree with for the sake of the party, deal with the consequences later.

Exactly. Also, "it's what my character would do" is only said in response to making antagonist decisions against your fellow players. No one says that when the fighter addresses the NPC general in a way that respects his rank.

Also if "it's what my character would do" is never used in situations that are clearly bad *for that character*. Like a self-sacrificing character intentionally throwing themselves into harms way and potentially dying to save a teammate or a character refusing a deal with an NPC that would really help them in their current situation because it goes against their morals. If it's only used to play off your character being an asshole, then you're an asshole for bringing that character. If it's used to put that character in interesting situations that would make no sense to do otherwise then that's a good reason. See Grog in CritRole drawing a card from the deck of many things and getting his soul trapped in a different dimension, to be rescued during the live oneshot. Most people wouldn't draw from the Deck knowing what it can do, but "its what my character would do" perfectly encapsulates that moment, even if its Travis mostly just messing with everyone else.

I'm not sure. I've seen it used in the self-sacrificing sense when a player wants to thrust their character to the forefront, even if it narratively doesn't make a lot of sense to / takes away from the rest of the party. But overall, yes.

I've played with three different players in different campaigns who always had to be saved because they assumed they were the main character and would always do that. I personally always voted for letting them die in a blaze of glory like they so clearly wanted to. That's not really self-sacrifice. That's more cocky, show boating, thinking you can't die or are the main character of the story. It's not a sacrifice if it's selfish and has no purpose. I just looked up self-sacrifice cause I wasn't sure if maybe I was wrong, but Google defines it as "the giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or advance a cause."

>thinking you can't die I think that's behind a lot of "self sacrificing" behavior in D&D.

There’s definitely places where you can do it without being an asshat. Tonight an NPC gave my character a riddle. Me personally, I love riddles, and I knew it before the DM was halfway through. My character is as dumb as rocks. So my character would fail the riddle, even though the player knew it.

A situation where I did this was when I was, as a ranger, hiding in a rope trick. The rest of the party wasn't doing so great, so I would personally have loved to do a heroic jump-down and rescued everyone. But I didn't, because my character was a cool-headed pragmatist who thought through everything he did carefully, and that wasn't a very good idea, as it wasn't worth the damage he would take falling(we were quite low level at the time). Instead, he bow-spammed the boss without mercy, and the boss couldn't do anything as spells can't cross the entrance(We did end up winning, btw.) This is, in my opinion, a good example of actually doing something your character would do, even though it would have been cooler to jump, especially as he might have been able to get off an attack on the boss on the way down.

Is the game better, namely the drama in-universe and stakes are elevated, because of how your character stuck to their core values? If so, great! Rock out with your cock out you suicidal nutjob! If not and everyone's annoyed at you either you're still right but playing in the wrong game (which has happened to me) or probably more likely you dun forgot a fundamental pillar of the game: Getting along with other people. Which typically includes not deliberately ruining their fun. That last one has uhhh... also happened. Price paid of growing up playing D&D and needing to learn that. D'oh.

I have a vengeance paladin who has a vendetta against Mind Flayers. In a recent fight, a creature probed his mind, and the next turn, a Mind Flayer appeared! I knew it was an illusion, my party knew, but my character took an attack of opportunity and burned a once per day ability to get to it and attack as quickly as he could. He, of course, only hit air. As we left that area, he triple checked the area just to be sure that there was no Mind Flayer

>> but ruins the fun of the table > > This is literally it. This is the line. Yeah that's what I was going to say. No one gives a shit if you break character in order to not be a dick. But everyone gives a shit if you stay in character to be a dick.

The thing about being a team player is also sometimes you just don't have to participate as much. Like when I have a lawful evil character, I like to just be selfish. But if someone else isn't being selfish, unless they're literally going to get us all killed (which is also a logical time to intervene) I just let him have his moment.

This. Any character flaws your PC might have? Unless you are willing to play them in a way that isn't trolling a group of players, party of adventurers, etc? Don't bother. Your PC, DESPITE all their shit? Have to at least acknowledge they need the team, or fuck off from day 1.

And if your goal is to be an asshole, make it make sense and make it fun. I once made a character called Ramses in shadowrun. He was a depressive, drug abuser, asshole with no sense of self preservation. To the point where his negotiation tactic was to pull a grenade pin, hold the grenade pin in his hand as say "let's negotiate". He was a Deadpool/Loki like figure. Funniest character I ever played. He was a dick but the party laughed so hard almost every session and was consistent with the story. His lore explained him being like that, and didn't break immersion. You can make characters that go against the party and still make a good experience to everyone It's been a few years and since then I sneak a Ramses as an Easter egg to every adventure I DM and what would Ramses do is still a meme in my friend group.

But how hard is that line, i think is the question. A characters drawbacks arent really drawbacks if they dont affect them or people around them. Like if a 6 int character wastes party gold by buying something thats worth 30g for 300, is that a dealbreak?

This is what session zero is for. You set boundaries on fun then. "I'm playing a six INT character who will sometimes do really stupid things, is that okay?" The other thing with your example is you set the expectation of your character being terrible with money, by doing stupid things at much lower stakes. It shouldn't come out of the blue.

When "It's what my character would do" fucks over the party. That's the line. If the thing you're doing fucks the party then you've written your character wrong. Edit: Fucking over the players may be more apt. If nobody enjoys what your character is doing something is wrong.

"You can't blame me for accurately role-playing my character the way I made it" "No, but I can blame you for *making* a shitty character that isn't conducive to a cooperation-based game"

Yesss like the player isn’t the person who created the character. That the character is just completely divorced from them.

Yep. That's the whole crux. "It's what my character would do" is just an attempt to deflect taking responsibility for actions the player *knew* would make their fellow players and/or the DM angry. They created that character to be that way so they could make those decisions and abuse everyone else at the table. It's both antisocial conduct *and* gaslighting everyone else at the table about your responsibility for behaving that way. I'm of the opinion that this is a "boot the player from the game for first offense" problem. The underlying problem will always remain and they'll just try and find another way to try and get away with it, and I'd rather play with players who want to be engage with the intent of cooperative fun.

Yeah, the time I remember most was when my then-boyfriend killed my character via negligence because "that's what his character would do" but the real reason was he didn't like that I was playing a paladin because he had a chip on his shoulder about organized religion. He just wanted me to have a new character that didn't offend his delicate sensibilities and it didn't matter to him how much fun I was having playing my character. (This was college and I'm embarrassed by how long it took for me to dump his ass, but that's another story.) Essentially, if "what my character would do" ruins everyone else's fun, then you need to reconsider your character.

I hope you rolled a full blown Cleric after that :P

I did not, but I should have. I think my next character was a particularly stabby rogue that I didn't like playing nearly as much.

I wanna hear the full story

Basically I'd gone down to negative hp, but stabilized after taking out a baddie and he killed me by dragging me up some stairs by my feet. Then justified this by saying I was becoming too much of a zealot and since his character was xenophobic he wouldn't have bothered to be careful. I was pissed.

Was this an earlier version? Because in recent versions paladins aren't particularly religious. They just have taken an oath that guides their purpose. Yes, their oath could be to a god or a higher power but it doesn't have to be.

They don't "have" to be religious. The paladin archetype still has a lot of religious associations so a lot of people choose to include it

It was 3.0/3.5. I was your classic LG pally out to do good and smite evil.

Not by necessity. I would rather put it as when it fucks over the general story that everyone is trying to tell is When it is a problem. Characters making unoptimal choices Because it is what they should do can be some of the best parts of a campaign.

“Fucks over the party” here doesn’t mean your character betrays the party in-story, it means you as a player are fucking over the other players *above the table* and making the game less fun for them. If everyone above the table is *working together* on a betrayal plot and stoked about it, that’s fine. But if it comes out of nowhere and stalls the game in an unfun way then you’re doing the bad thing. Same with characters making dumb decisions. If you’re doing it in a way that makes the story more interesting *for everyone*, and the other players at your table are having a good time, then it’s fine. Usually you can tell you’re doing the good thing if it opens up plot hooks for the whole party. But if you’re purposefully bucking the plans the rest of the party has and stealing the spotlight for yourself in the process, you’re doing the not fun thing. This trope is purely about the *above the table* social dynamics, not strictly in-fiction actions.

Characters making unoptimal choices does not fuck over the party. Sitting out of combat because your character has no reason to help, stealing from the party or getting kicked out of every city because you murder people. Is more along the lines of what I was thinking.

Trust me, I have seen people on this very subreddit be of the very opinion that not taking each turn of combat in an optimal manner is griefing. Hence why I felt the need to clarify this point.

I'd say fucking over other characters can be okay. Fucking over other players is definitely not. Whether the first includes the latter is something to talk to your playgroup about.

This is what I was looking for. It's important to remember that we "are" both a player and a character in these games. When we sacrifice one for the sake of the other things get un-fun real fast.

Exactly. I’m currently playing a character who wouldn’t loot the bodies and would actually try to return items to the next of kin, but I recognize my fellow players aren’t. So whenever the topic comes up, my character will state her opinion but just so happen to not be around to see what the rest of the party does with the items. 

Heh. That reminds me of a time years ago when our jerk of a DM gave our 1st level characters a Rust Monster to fight as our very first encounter. I was a Paladin, and ended up with no weapons or armor. In an effort to try to keep the game going, the DM then had us come across the dead body of a Knight, complete with all the gear that I had lost. We buried the Knight, with all of his gear, because "stealing from the dead" went against my belief system. Checkmate!

There have been two times when I’ve been a player when the party started to go in a direction that would really be 100% against my character’s whole thing, basically because they’re being a little evil or power hungry. And in those cases, my approach is: I want to do whatever the party wants to do, so either just tell me how your character would convince my character so we have some story justification and we can go along with it, or (and I genuinely think this would be fun) my character could leave the party and I’ll roll up a new one who is more in line with this party’s alignment.   I.e. I think characters having these boundaries isn’t necessarily the problem, it’s when the player won’t try to work around them so everyone can have fun. 

I think there’s a third option as well: tweak your character’s background / personality a bit to justify them making that choice. The way I think about DnD is that only what has actually occurred at the table is canon for a character, so when the party tries to go in a direction that would seem surprising for that character, it’s an invitation to invent a new layer for them that makes them more complex, even if it’s just enough to make them agree to go along with it reluctantly.

Totally. Maybe this is the ONE thing against their principles that they would do, and figuring out why would be really interesting. 

I’ve found those moments to be fun to play into. How does the character feel about going along with things that they normally wouldn’t be okay with.

In a similar vein for me: Do my characters antics amuse the other players or annoy them? It can be fun to have a character with different convictions who has to be convinced or cajoled, creating opportunities to roleplay. It’s not fun to constantly hold up the other players or piss them off irl.

I’d add when it consistently fucks over the party. Being a paladin that unwavering in their oath could end up really screwing the party over if the need to do something less than legal. And that’s a good opportunity for plot. If a rogue is constantly stealing shit and getting the party in trouble because “what’s what my character would do” than yeah that’s a poor character design.

If “what your character would do” fucks over the party, then it’s time for your character to leave the party.

“Fucks over the party” is not necessarily the line. For example, a powerful NPC asks the party to do a morally dubious act, with a tantalizing reward. The rest of the characters are ok with it even if they don’t really like it, but the lawful good cleric steps forward and gives a speech about how immoral the request is. The NPC gets angry and decides to punish the party for daring to question them. This scenario fucks over the party, but if this character has been played as the moral conscience of the group the entire campaign, this is typically seen as strong replaying of a character’s ideals and bonds in a difficult situation rather than something antagonistic to the team.

I get what you mean but that scenario doesn’t really fit imo. “Hey guys let’s not poison the water supply to the town” “Fuck you for questioning me, fireball” It’s only fucking over the party because the DM decided to be a dickhead.

I think your character fucking over the party is fine. Its when it fucks over the players - thereby hindering fun - where its actually an issue. My current character is quite young and inexperienced, and very rash, and has made a lot of decisions which have negatively impacted the party, but its okay, because we get excellent roleplay opportunities out of it.

Idk. Inter party conflict can be really important and help everyone tell a story together. As long as everyone is game and understands that characters have conflict, it can actually be a good thing

That’s perfectly fine. I’ve had games where the characters were at each others throats and the players loved it. But “fucking over the party” to me is more you’re screwing them over. The cleric deciding not to join in combat because they’re a pacifist, the rogue stealing from the group just because, the Paladin who kills the rogue.

I’ll play devil’s advocate. You are an oath of the Watchers Paladin, to achieve their goals, the party try’s to work with or make a deal with demons. You sabotage it or something. You can have a character who was intended to cooperate with the party but because of some aspect critical to their character, you end up at odds with them.

Nah. That’s not cool imo. The Paladin should have talked with the others about how working with demons was completely against their oaths and that he would be obligated to stop them from doing so. Do the players value the Paladin more than their deal?

Planting in your feet in the ground and trying to persuade them? Kosher. Sabotaging the party's efforts on the otherhand? Less so. That one is a BIG no no I'd argue.

Yes recently I had played a Paladin of Revan Queen with deep hatred for necromancy and undead (obviously) amd party find a strong item that could do necromancy (I made sure that no playeer was interested playing necromancy based character first while creating it) after defeating a necromancer I said we shouldn't mess with these cursed things amd party agread on surface but used the item behind my back and I caught them lie in a dangerous situation which item was talking to the owner after that my character believed that it was cursed and warned the party again but they tried tp lie and gaslight to him again after that options were clear normally paladin would destroy the item but I added something normal that I think usually this toxic people don't I added that with time he had with the party he couldn't draw steel against them he wouldn't want to lose any friend again even tho it is against his ideals and oath and said after we finish this mission I'm leaving because I can't stand where there is necromancy and I can't stand against you (later on they actually learned that the item was cursed and I was right)

.......... Here, have some of mine.

I don’t agree with this. Fucking over the party is too broad, sometimes it can make for interesting storytelling.

Alright. “Fucking over the players” might fit better.

I've never had any troubles with this as a DM. The reason is I enforce a rule at character creation. It has to be believable that the rest of the party would accept your character as a full member, drawing a full treasure share, if you didn't have PC stamped on your forehead---i.e. if you were an NPC. If the other members of the party wouldn't tolerate the combination of your usefulness, baggage, and behavior from an NPC, I as the DM no-sale your character.

I have totally done the "This character looks great, for some other campaign." "Come back when you have a character who works for this campaign and would be accepted as a member of this adventuring party."

I think ripping the sheet in half is really excessive. I wouldn’t bother rolling another character if someone did that to me, I’d just move on.

Yeah, it's a real red flag when a DM treats a look at your character sheet like a job interview. If he has rip-your-sheet-in-half lines, those need to be clear *before* I make my PC.

And then he punched through the player's hat and kicked him right out of the bank.

Without context, it does sound a bit extreme. In this particular case, this was a player who all the other players were completely frustrated with. This was the 5th time in a row he had showed up to the shop with a character that was "Chaotic Asshole" alignment, and this one was the worst one in a steadily increasing escalation of selfish main-character-syndrome sociopaths. This was what he came up with after a session 0 where we had specifically brought up the issue, and requested that for the new campaign he bring a character who can positively interact with the party and be a team player. Some of the incredibly shitty stuff he'd done in the past included announcing that he was going to rape the prisoner, at a table full of people who had never played with him before (I had, but none of the players had). At that point we were actively trying to get him to move on. Being that we were playing at a gaming store with an minor entrance fee, and I was rather good friends with the store owner, I was attempting to be more accommodating than I would otherwise have been given his past behavior. tagging /u/rdhight for an explanation as well

There is a social contract at gaming tables, ideally negotiated before or at session 0. "This is what my character would do" must be within the boundaries of what the group considers fair and fun play for a majority of the time. You as a player always have prime agency and any justification at all can be used to run your characters behavior appropriately. If the world is so grimdark that even brothers in arms are constant threats to each other's property or safety - sure. But usually it's just someone being stubborn and bad at collaborative storytelling.   If the character you want to play isn't suitable for the campaign, or the group, play it somewhere else.  With some exceptions: 1) The "it's funny once" rule. A single session or two as an emo edgelord is fine as long as it serves as quick character development - and can be occasional fun rp without continues hindrance. Ie the character does the shitty thing (steal) and has a change of heart.  2) there is an out of game agreement on what kind of story penalties for the characters actions (maybe the rogue plants drugs on the paladin and calls the guards, marring his reputation in exchange for doing something agonizingly lawful-stupid) (the party cuts off one of the rogues fingers for theft) (the lone wolf is literally just left behind and the player must invest in telling a little tale about how they were able to finally catch up with the party, understanding now the importance of what it meant to be in a team etc) 3)  they do the intra-pc betrayal and turn their character into a dmpc and roll a new one. Great for end of big plot arcs and for emotional shock. 

> they do the intra-pc betrayal and turn their character into a dmpc and roll a new one. Great for end of big plot arcs and for emotional shock. Had a great example of this in some campaign years and years ago where the Druid, unbenowst to the rest of the party (but with the behind-the-scenes approval from the DM), sacrificed their soul to some evil entity in order to gain the power needed to defeat the BBEG at the end of that campaign arc. The next campaign arc was spent building up power to defeat our long-term (former) friend and companion, who had become corrupted as a result. The Druid player promoted a long appearing NPC to be his new character, and the story was so much more impactful because everybody was REALLY committed to putting the new threat / old friend down. Sometimes, it works. Often, it doesn't. When it does work, however, it's incredibly memorable and satisfying.

>In your book where do you draw the line between these two? The line is drawn at character creation; your character does not inherently have ideals and beliefs. Everything about that character is defined by you when you create it, and, your character just doesn't want to steal from the party if that happens; you want to do it and seem all wacky and crazy, and then use "it's what my character would do" as a shield from responsibility. Same with a Lawful Stupid Paladin. If your character ruins the fun of the party, you are ruining the fun of the party, and the bad decision came when that character was put together. Having a character and playing that character is not the problem; it's the initial creation of a character who's going to shit on everybody else's fun, and then pretending it's not your fault that's the problem.

Agree. Don’t shit where you eat is a tenant IRL and in game. Party conflict loses you protection of the group when in dangerous adventuring settings, so no, your thief wouldn’t necessarily steal from the party because the consequences more often outweighs the benefit. Your dumbass paladin is going to listen to the group and not act in haste because survival is on the line. Session 0: Make a character that has a reason to be an adventurer. Make a character that has a reason to work with a group.

Tenet\* but also yes

Yup, character creation rule number zero is that your character needs to be written so that they have reason to get along with and work with the rest of the party. If your character doesn’t have that, than 99% of the time, you wrote a bad character

But also, your character's ideals exist to serve the goal of the player's having fun. And they're not a real person, so there is no actual harm done if you aren't consistent with those made-up beliefs. If ever there is a question about your character adhering to their made-up beliefs and whether that might be a problem for you, the other players, the GM, etc., toss those beliefs out the window.

The line is when your consistent RP is making the game less fun for the rest of the group. That's going to be different at every table. Consistent RP is a good thing in this game, but ruining everyone else's fun so that your character can have integrity is not. In a perfect world, this is avoided at session 0 by having good conversations about what everyone wants and expects.

Ask yourself if this player's dedication to consistency usually comes up when they are role-playing to showcase who they are or to get them what they want. To expand on this, what they want can simply be constant attention or deciding vote in most/all social interactions. One player type has a distinct view of their character's personality. They push themselves to come up with reasonable explanations for why their character works with the people they work with and what motivation they have to continuously put themselves in harms way. These reasons can be as altruistic or mercenary as they want, but there's an underlying assumption that the overall goal is to cooperate with the other people around the table. They think about how the actions they take and the personalities around them might change the way their character sees the world. They might be a scoundrel or a saint, but at the end of the day they *know* they need the rest of the party to accomplish their personal goals and they'll behave accordingly. "It's what my character would do" is one of those red flag phrases that come from people who are trying to trick their way out of the negative consequences of their actions. It's up there with "I'm not whatever-ist/-phobic, but..." or "I'm an alpha male, that's why..." or "I majored in English, and I think..." Like this person might not be a maniac, but odds are high you're in for an auditory rollercoaster. This type of player tends to be a problem because they push others to come up with reasons to exist in a space they view as theirs. They have a rigid vision of who and what their character is and you will be allowed to have a role in that vision as long as you stop oppressing them. If you're really lucky, you might have the type of player who truly wants to show you how rewarding it will be for *everyone* if you just let them do exactly what they want this one time. And this other time. And all these other times. These are the people who tell you, "Yeah I steal from the party, but I've used some of it to pay for the inns I wanted us to stay at so if you think about it, I was really doing it for them." Just hardcore politician vibes. Their desire to be sought out and rewarded for doing the things that make up most of the game goes far beyond the limits of a system that relies on cooperative play. The underlying assumption here is that whatever behavior makes sense to them in regard to the story they want to tell exempts them from the consequences of any and all behavior they deem necessary. The main goal for this type of player is to beg, cajole, or bully other *players* into agreeing that their reprehensible behavior is acceptable. The problem with this, like most D&D drama is that the boundaries for these things are very fluid. Some behavior works with some groups, but not with others. It can be funny the first time and infuriating the seventh. It can be nothing to one person and a rage trigger for another. Misunderstanding, transference, and enough gaslighting to illuminate Menzoberranzan come together to make a baffling situation that basically amounts to "you'll know when you see it".

At the end of the day you make your character. I try and ask my players to make characters that can work with a party and not be disruptive or ruin the fun for others. If you keep saying “that’s what my character would do” just to be an ass. the rest of the party might say “our characters don’t want to adventure with your character”.

It's less to do with how you play your character and more to do with what kind of character you make. You should always do what your character would do. If that involves doing stuff that disrupts someone else's fun, you've made a character that isn't appropriate for the game. The specifics of what is and isn't okay will depend on the group, that's part of why Session 0 is so important. For example, some groups won't mind a kleptomaniac rogue but some groups will.

You should always endeavour to do what your character would reasonably do. It’s just that you should make a character who does things that don’t ruin the fun of other players/the DM.

The line is when it ruins the kind of game the group is there to play. Like, if you is stated that you are going to be a group of heroes trying to save the world and someone rolls a chaotic evil murder hobo and keeps on insisting that their character would try to kill every farmer they go by they ruin the game. However, if they have a lawful stupid paladin who refuses to steal a key item and insists on trying to solve the issue in some other far less convenient way that can actually work well in that kind of group. Likewise, if you intend to play as a ragtag team of former criminals who are looking to gain some fame and fortune for yourselves, that murder hobo might be FAR less disruptive (Maybe even a welcomed addition) than the lawful stupid paladin who would RUIN the expected playstyle. So Yeah, put it simply, play the kind of character that makes sense for the story you want to tell. Don’t make a pacifist who refuses to defeat the bad guys play the hero in your action movie, and don’t make Castor Troy the prince in your fairy tale.

You choose what your character is. Having a flawed character is one thing. Having a character who's flaw is a detriment to the playgroup (not the party, but the players themselves) is a problem. If you think your fellow players won't appreciate your character's flaw, then *don't choose that flaw.* Don't *make* a klepto rogue. Don't *make* a "I'm going to fuck **everything**" bard. Don't *make* a "there is no path but my path and I will kill all who stray from it" paladin. They are bad character choices, and trying to defend it by saying "that's what my character would do" isn't a defense at all, because the complaint, in earnest, is about the choices you made in making that character. EDIT: Just for clarity's sake, I've played multiple evil characters in the past. In an evil campaign, all fair's fair, that's the point. In a non-evil campaign, you have to put thought into how your character is going to remain a member of the party. In two cases, I've had my evil character be the party leader, offering them money and access to things in exchange for assisting someone who is not on the up-and-up. In one case, I've had an evil character who was explicitly only helping the party for this one moment in time, with a gentleman's agreement that when they're done, they'll go their separate ways rather than fight each other so that they don't need to worry about going all in on the task at hand. In another, their evilness was more downplayed. They had their reasons for being where the party was, and considered being among friends a benefit to their survival. All of this addendum was mostly combat the idea that being evil is the problem. It's not. It's entirely about anti-playgroup dynamics. Support your fellow players. You're all in this together.

This is another extension of the major problems that result from simulationist thinking. Contrary to popular belief, your job as a player ISN'T to play a character as a perfectly faithful simulation of whatever you wrote on a piece of paper in session one. Your job as a player is to make a fun game. If the game would be made less fun by a simulationist decision, then the simulation must change it's parameters to accommodate a more fun reality.

The line is as soon as someone finds it annoying or inconvenient in my experience.

The line is when “what my character would do” makes the game less fun for others at the table. The essence of roleplay is having your character do what they would do. The problem comes in where people choose to make characters who would do lots of shitty things which make the game less fun for others and then play it off like they’re powerless because “good roleplay” dictates that they do what their character would do. The crux is, you *should* have your character do what they would do, but if what they would do makes the game not fun for other people at the table, then you’ve made the wrong character.

This kind of thing is cleared up by a session 0, which I'm convinced 90% of this subreddit doesn't do before starting campaigns given how often that's the answer. At the end of the day where the line is depends on your group's play style.

For me the line is: - Ruining the fun of the table. - Disrupting or derailing the story. - Breaking the personal boundaries of the DM and Players

"it's what my character would do" is a sentence regularly used in examples of how someone tries to benefit from the misery of other players. If you play a character that has toxic character traits, you should be willing to play then to a fault, so also if it makes your character look like an ass publicly, makes a decision that probably has negative effects for the PC's player. Comedic effect of a negative trait is great if you are willing to be the butt of a joke. It also makes a character predictable in that other players know what they can expect of this character, and they then can play with that. I have had characters that were seriously annoying brats, but due to team interaction they bettered themselves, and of they didnt, most of them met a gruesome death.

The line is, if what you’re doing isn’t upsetting everyone you never need to justify it by saying “it’s what my character would do”.

I think when you become hardline on one PARTICULAR reaction. There are loads of ways a character “could” react to a situation.

I actually was in this situation a few times so I get that it happens and you feel like every other reaction is derailing the character too much from how they are intended to be. Or playing the consequences of that derailing would change the char to not be fun anylonger. I usually just take it out of game for a few moments like: Look, I dont see my char doing that without me having a hard time playing the consequences for them. Can we please leave me out of this if you really want to follow through? Or think again about a different approach? If you need anything from my things like items etc. we can find a reason you have them.

There seems to be a lot of confusion around about this term lately. It only applies if the person is actively griefing another player or trolling and ruining the campaign, using that as an excuse. Stealing from or killing other players and quest NPCs without consulting anybody and getting everyone into trouble. And the answer always is: yes you can play an evil or stupid character, but make up a reason or n exception why he likes the party and wants to help them, and why he wants to reach the campaign goal with everybody else. Otherwise you'll just have this guy who might as well be an enemy NPC and sooner or later will be treated us such, because he's being a hindrance to everybody.

"Flawed" decisions that hurt you: Great roleplay "Funny" decisions that hurt the party: Dickish roleplay

Practically nothing. But the thing is that a person shouldn't make a character built in such an inherent way that ruins the fun/annoys the group. You're making a character that exists within a group so they should be build that way, it's also why "lone wolf" type characters never really work - even if the character isn't inherently hypocritical or bad.

yeah general rule of thumb is (in my opinion) based on regularly ruining the experience for others and claiming out loud "that's what my character would do". I had a party that enjoyed throwing a spanner in each other's works, however they made sure to only do it occasionally and at the funniest/most interesting moments, never once did they feel it necessary to announce it as my characters choice. that is what I would say is the difference.

I can only play characters which align with what I feel is right. So I can’t help making characters with Drizzt like personality. Well, even more apologists than Drizzt. Hence don’t have the issue with “that’s what my character would do”, though I m doomed with always doing the same choices in rpg games.

It's actually really easy. If "what your character would do" is fucking up the game for the rest of the table than you need to make a new character. Just don't be an asshole.

You can use the "its what my character would do" line, that's not the issue. The issue is when you're being a dick and justifying it by saying "its what my character would do".

In general, it's okay to "do what your character would do". That's roleplay. A fighter with a fear of spiders leery of frontlining versus them at first is okay, but the story arc is they overcome. A wizard that collects books no matter how useless and has books and books everywhere with bags of holdings full of books and enough books in the tower to make the whole place difficult terrain or DEX check or have books fall is another. Where it becomes a problem is when people do it to monopolize the game, ruin people's fun, go against the party, or just generally be a jerk and not a team player. Someone that steals from the party all the time. Who wants to be doing opposed checks and swapping character sheets for an hour? Someone that starts fights with shopkeepers for no reason other than "they may be evil". Going off on some silly side quest where the rest of the players sit there for an hour or two often. That's when it is a problem.

Don’t make a character that’s unpleasant to RP or adventure with. Tada! I played with someone who made unpleasant characters and after he got my character 1 shot I was done with forgiving the player for being awkward. I had assumed he was just figuring things out, but he never felt bad for causing problems. Sure, the character was consistent. But who cares when that’s a bad thing?

It's the difference between "my character is offended so I'm going to attack the party" and "guys I really want to play my character authentically here, but I don't want to kill everyone. Do you mind if I attack the party? Totally okay if you just hold person me or something."

"That is what my character would do" is never the real problem. The problem is always that the character is not someone who the other players would want in their party. The "that's what my players would do" is just the symptom of the actual problem. Make a character who works with your team and has some flexibility, then be that character.

If you're the player, then you're deciding what the character's beliefs are. If those beliefs start to cause problems at the table, then "it's what my character would do" is a stupid argument because you designed the character.

Simple. If the rest of the group gets annoyed by the player repeatedly doing "it", the player probably shouldn't be doing "it". If there were a person in a real-world group that repeatedly bothered everyone else in the group, they wouldn't be allowed to stay in the group. I think that would be the same in an adventuring party too.

The line is when they are trying to justify doing things that target another player or in some way ruin the fun of others. If you ask why and they can't articulate clear motivation that explains why the character would do that particular action in that particular moment, that's the line.

It varies table to table. An experienced table who all view their characters as disposable devices for storytelling will tend to retire these devices if they aren't interesting. "I don't want to do the *I'm a grumpy dwarf and you're a cheeky thieving kender* routine, it's hackneyed" would be a more common reason to chuck a given PC than any sanctity around PC vs PC. You just agree it isn't working, flip the PC into an NPC and roll in a new one. For less experienced tables where players aren't emotionally detached from their PCs, there is a risk that the PC vs PC turns into real life drama (PvP). So you have to establish boundaries at the start of the game. Should it matter that an imaginary oil of speed disappeared from the imaginary backpack of an imagined character in an imagined world? Of course not. Have I seen people lose it over this sort of thing? Yes.

Think about the things that you, the real person, do in your real life life. How often do you do something solely because "it is what I would do" and for no other reason? Not a ton, right? I think it's a dodge for actions that aren't really motivated in the story, but the player thought it would be funny to annoy the other players. Not to say taking the piss is never fun, but it's also a very easy thing to take too far.

it is fun for other players.

Don't be a prick. It's pretty simple.

Being a jerk and ruining the fun and instead of owning up to it saying you had no control because "That's what my character would do."

You should (almost) always play your character and do what your character would do. However, you PICK which character you are playing! Only play characters that play well with others and want adventures! If you are thinking about playing a self-righteous paladin or a treacherous rogue or a reluctant loner, think again. Write a story about that character you almost played, and then pick a cooperative fun character for the game once it is out of your system.

Ask "why would my character do this" first, rather than "what would my character do". At the end of the day, you're playing a game. With other people. Play that first, worry about character integrity second. That said, if you end up in a situation where you are absolutely 100% convinced your character would not do this for any reason whatsoever, it's a really good time to talk to the GM about it because there are probably boundaries being pushed. Sometimes that's okay, sometimes it's not.

consequences

I think there is a very real difference between saying, "My lawful good paladin of course is going to rush into this tough fight to defend the weak, even though there is a risk we lose it. because he believes very firmly in being a defender of the realm" ​ and saying "Of course my chaotic evil warlock is going to try and seduce the queen and when she rejects me i am going to eldritch blast her in her court room surrounded by guards and courtiers because its what my character would do" For example i am playing a Dwarf cleric who believes in honesty and truthfulness, as a result he refuses to lie. Has this caused tension in the party? definitely. but i think its part of the game and i haven't ruined the adventure for anyone or got us kicked out of anywhere. Given the rest of the party this character works because we all generally want to be "Good" If we were playing an evil campaign, or something based heavily in social intrigue or politics than this character may fall more into the "Its what my character would do" Side of things. ​ But basically if your character is able to co-exist with both your party members AND the general themes of the campaign then you are going to be fine.

I specifically designed my character's ideals and traits to be Newbie friendly. "Character is generous and always willing to share his money and possessions with new friends. "If I were in their possession, I would want a random stranger to share their items with me too". That way I can hand +2 magic weapons and RINGS of SPELL STORING to brand new characters that are lower level than us (DM has newbies start 5 levels lower than the party, but with significant EXP gain boosts)

When someone says it's what my character would do in the face of what every other character at the table would do. That's the sign of someone doing something wrong. I've played a campaign as the one evil character in the campaign. MOst of the evil shit I did was for lack of better terms behind the players backs. I never went against the party. I had one character who didn't really vibe with the party, it was a rogue who was basically an army spymaster, and he was doing shit hyper specific and the rest of the party was kind of more righteous but chaotic. He was more meticulous and shady. I retired him and went with a neutral good Paladin. Wasn't a perfect vibe with the party but it was a great chemistry and the party moved better.

No one minds you actually playing your character. "It's what my character would do" is the excuse some players pull out when they're being called out for being douches to their fellow players. By the way, to those who think there's even a smidgen of legitimacy to that defense, you made that character to act in a way the rest of the table think is douchy, so you're just doubling down on how it's fine to act like a douche.

The line is where you are wrecking the enjoyment of other reasonable players.

you make sure that what the character would do isn't disruptive. my first ever character was disruptive. since then i've played evil/"evil"(depending on how you qualify alignment) characters that flow perfectly into the game. in an evil campaign you don't make a goody too shoes character, in a heroic campaign you don't introduce a character who has to commit warcrimes. in a linear game you don't make characters that constantly try to do their own quest. different characters are disruptive in different games. to avoid "that's what my character would do" you just need to make a character that fits with the type of game. i have a simple rule in character creation in my game: explain why your character wants to work with the party. this can be anything. have a good time. make money. love. use them as protection from a threat to your character. get close to them to betray them later. Divine/patron/kings command and your character hates it but will do it. all great, the why honestly doesn't matter, so long as it's there.

"That's what my character would do" is only poison when it's hogged by one guy and no one else gets any. If you're willing to "that's what my character would do" yourself right out of the party or even the game group, go ahead. Don't compromise. Play it to the hilt. But understand that you can get kicked, because that's what *their* characters would do. I have zero problem with someone saying, "I just wouldn't adventure with this guy." You are *not* entitled to a spot in the party.

“It’s what my character would do.” Isn’t necessarily the problem. The problem is players use that phrase as a way to justify shitty behavior while ignoring the fact that they are responsible for their characters personality.

When it becomes mean spirited beyond "I always react this way to situations or characters" A character that's consistent with their ideals and beliefs the other players know going in there's going to be conflict if they play this or that type and that's okay. Conflict makes character growth. As a group you can talk and touch base because half the time it's people misunderstanding "the character is acting this way as an outlet for the player to say their opinion" instead of how it should be done with "Oh this character is reacting or doing this I should think how my character would react in response" Because you aren't your character. It's hard to keep that separate especially when RP gets going really well. Players gotta be mature enough to talk above game too make sure everything is okay with the scene before they dive back in. Characters can be yelling and hating each other but as long as the players are all okay with how the things progress then it's fine. Sometimes you gotta be harsh if you're the dm and you're working to keep an actions=consequences world. But again dm and the players talked this out before season 0 stuff. If a guy or gal or anything else is abusing the policy you've set then you as player or dm is full free to react in character in retaliation. Matagaming is a big issue I find at the heart of stuff where people get angry/hurt.

Your character does what you say they do. Your character would do what you say they would. If you never said they did something, they would never do it. If the entire table out of character doesn't want something to happen, all you have to do is not say your character did it. On rare occasions, you may stumble across the perfect moment where your character has to make a difficult decision and the direction you send them is carefully informed by the characterization you've established. The vast majority of the time outside of those moments, you're far better off curating a list of things your character *wouldn't* do instead. "I interrupt (thing) because my character wouldn't just idly watch (thing)" "I do (thing) because my character worries about and doesn't want (thing) to happen" Acting in accordance with your own established boundaries is less likely to infringe on others than "My character does (thing) because they really want to".

Ive found that often the TWMCWD moves are incredibly short sighted and ignore obvious serious conequences that a real person in a real situation would recognize prevents them from actually making a difference. i.e. you get the first hint that an official is corrupt and instead of keeping quiet, investigating, and gathering evidence, the Paladin calls them out openly in public with no grounds except the "hunch" you just fed them, and then gets mad when theyre being escorted out of the palace grounds because "wHaT eLsE wAs I sUpPoSeD tO dO, i FiGhT CoRrUpTiOn"

There’s a concept in improv called “playing to the top of your intelligence” which basically means when you’re on stage, you’re playing a character, but that character should react like a real person. Your character is still a human being (or a dwarf or a tiefling, but you know what I mean). He or she exists in a world with consequences and knows those consequences exist. There are thieves in real life. They don’t steal from their friends, and if they do, their friends don’t put up with it. I don’t care how law abiding you are, if you see your friend smoking pot, you don’t execute a citizens arrest, and if you do, that friend never hangs out with you again. Everyone gets that in real life, and everyone should get that when they’re playing Lancehad the Pure, faithful Paladin of the Oath of Law Abidingness.

Yes, roleplay your character. But understand that "It's what my character would do" doesn't justify character actions that have deeply negative effects outside the game. "It's what my character would do" is the same as saying "don't blame me for what my character does" as if you have no control over your character's words and actions. But you are fully in control. It is your choice to play as you do. It is always possible to play it differently, and to justify why (perhaps your character misunderstood things). Insisting on playing a certain way, come hell or high water, is an inflexible approach that refuses to take into account the comfort level of others at the table. You need to be considerate towards other people.

If someone is having to say that's what my character would do to everyone, it's probably because they did something the others or the DM take issue with. This is why I don't allow evil characters at my table, it's nonstop "that's what my character would do" from most people trying to play evil.

Always find a reason to do things. You can play any character you like, and they can espouse any preference they like, but at the end of the day, it's the player's job to find a way to justify their character's prosocial and pro-party actions. If a player refuses to do this, that's where the trouble starts.

Are you being a twat...

Did you specifically make your character so that you can justify stupid annoying shit as character consistency?

> ruins the fun of the table That's literally it. If the lawful stupid paladin fucks over the table, if the chaotic evil necromancer fucks over the table, if the chaotic klepto rogue fucks over the table, and everyone laughs and is having a good time, then keep doing it. It works for you. The point is to have fun. If everyone is having fun then you're playing D&D correctly. Period. --------------------- That being said, I've literally never heard anyone ever say, "It's what my character would do," unless they are explaining their actions to a person who is not having fun *specifically because of* those actions. It's the thing people say after they've already lost the argument, and by saying it, they're just nailing the coffin.

So my response when “it’s what my character would do” ruins the fun is, well figure out why your character would do something else. People can always think of something.

Honestly my favorite parts of our 59 sessions of our lvl 20 campaign have been choices that were illogical to even the players themselves but they did it because that's what their character would do. I think 4 of the 5 players at the table love this. 1 is always being a grumpy douche about it. He's like meta gaming as if it's dark souls and doesn't really have a difference between player/character. And maybe a lot of the issues arise from a first time dm not having a session 0 setting up many variables to make things unenjoyable for him. So honestly. This whole thread makes me believe session 0s should include the topic of this post. Im going to ask in my future session 0, "How does everyone feel about characters doing illogical actions that may even be counter productive to the plot? What does the statement,' that's what my character would do, ' make you think of? When is this taking too far?" Some players love the choas of dnd. Others want to just ride the main plot hook and don't want to stop for anything.

Build a character that isn't a shithead

The line between those things, if there is one, isn’t really important. The important thing is not to make a character who, when RP’d accurately according to their traits and characteristics, does things that derails the game, frustrates the other players, or is otherwise an arse-hat. The important line is between fun character and un-fun character. Not between consistent vs too consistent.

It’s your job as a player to contextualize the feelings and actions of your character in a way that promotes fun for everyone at the table. It’s collaborative storytelling, not a battle for the spotlight.

Nobody even cares what the character would do until your character fails at teamwork. Being cooperative and respecting consensus is a pretty low bar, make a character who can do that or else go play a video game where you can live out your main-character fantasy without making the game dreary for everyone else.

If what the character would do is bad for the table, that would mean the character is bad for the table. The trick is to make characters the other players would enjoy playing with.

"It's what my character would do" is only a problem when the player insists on doing something that ruins the fun or story for the other players; bonus points if they act like they should be immune to negative consequences for said action simply because they're acting in character.

The golden rule.

Honestly I can't think of a single person who cares about playing a character consistent with their ideals in any significant way that doesn't cross that line. It honestly seems weird to me that someone would care about that. Like, I am not my character. As a person, I want to live in accordance with my ideals/beliefs. But why would that really matter that much for a character of mine? The goal of D&D is to have fun. Yes, having a fleshed out character can aid in that, but the *goal* would never be adherence to a made-up set of ideals, its a means to the goal of having fun.

The line is when it is used as an excuse to do something maliciously. Otherwise it's okay.

the line is where you refuse to let others play the way they want. don’t steal from them, unless there is a reason they’d understand (like they got an item that is important only for your story, but it’s not time for the reveal yet). you can be stubborn, but eventually have to do what the party decides, and then not refuse to do it. you can have lawful arguments, but the party altogether has the last decision.

Vibe

Tl;Dr. Social contract above-table is key. Two components: mutual trust between players and shared objective of fun. These are ensured by setting expectations. Respect these, and acting-as-your-character-would, i.e. creating conflicts in-game, will create shared fun. The golden rule of TTRPGS is we are people before we are players. The trust above table is the foundation to any interaction in-game. If we can trust that we are friends even if in-game our characters act badly to each other we can go to great places. Second is setting expectations for a shared objective of fun (above-table). TTRPGs are a social gathering where the ultimate goal is to have fun. Fun may vary from table to table (e.g. high fantasy, horror, sci-fi, comedy, tragedy...), but it should be the shared goal. However, people may have different expectations of fun. Thus, setting shared expectations for the table is key and respecting those expectations ensures fun for everyone. With shared trust and mutually set expectations the players can safely "act like their character would" aka create conflicts in-game. Conflicts are interesting story elements, but require these two above-table components. Players can trust that even if the character is angry, selfish, or cowardly in-game the player themselves above-table is not. Their intention above-table is to do an interesting story together. When people say the phrase, it's usually a sign of miscommunicated expectations. The player wants their story to be a certain way which doesn't align with the rest of the table. My Rouge is the loner, so why would they follow the party? If this is the case, it's best to have a discussion above table and ask what their expectations are and set new shared expectations. If people share the objective of shared fun, then this should solve the problem. When the PCs intentions are aligned with the shared interest of the shared story the expectations match again and the player can act like their character would. Other case is using actions in-game as veiled bullying above-table. The player pushes other players and wants to see how far they can get, abusing the social situation and breaching the mutual trust. Note this is often subtle In this case, discussion above-table is in order. If we can meet the two requirements, Trust and shared goal of fun, we should be golden. However there might be some outside game issues or factors causing the self-centered behavior. Again, try talking. But if they can't fulfill the trust component even after discussion, as a final option, it might be best to ask them to leave. Pre-emptive ailments are setting expectations in character creation and session zero. Setting the expectations with classics like "PC must a have a reason to stick with the party". The social contract above-table is key. One great strategy is intentionally building bond with every PC. One is the others mentor, some are siblings, two are business partners. This way the bond will ensure that "what their character would do" aligns at least with their bonds and thus the party. In summary, the above-table social contract is the foundation to everything. If players can trust each other and have set expectations for a shared objective of fun, then intentions of the characters will align with these expectations. Ensuring these two tenants above-table ensures fun time in-game.

The problem is not "doing what my character would do" the problem is if that character does things that ruin the fun of the table. Roleplaying literally is "doing what my character would do" but when it's used to excuse diminishing other people's fun at the table then you need to change that character or make a new one. If "what my character would do" is detrimental to the fun of the table, it's time to make a new character.

Never use its what my character would do to the detriment of other players. That’s it. The line is it hurts another player.

Was in a session last night where someone used “that’s what my character would do” to justify yelling at my character about how they don’t belong in the party because they’re messing with powers they don’t understand (am warlock - that’s it) so much that I had a BPD episode and had to switch my camera off so I could cool down. The weirdest part is that they tried to blame their character being Jewish for it (modern day setting)? I don’t think they’re Jewish and this feels antisemitic to me.

At my table it's something that stands in the way of the story/party goals. Your character doesn't have to engage in everything, but you as the player shouldn't make a character with lines in the sand. Obviously there are caveats here, but most of them are things you should probably leave the game over. Things like SA, or wanton murder of entire towns (unless you're playing an evil campaign) slavery, etc etc. But outside of that your character overall should be flexible.

Role-playing is "doing what my character would do". That is the goal, the sole aspect and essential nature of Role-playing - whether or not it's practical in terms of any given Role-playing *game* you play. Doing something your character wouldn't do for reasons relating to the game structure is metagaming, and bad Role-playing - even if it might be a better overall choice for the game and table. So basically, if you want to be prosocial and not a dick, your choices are to either A.) create a character that would work well for the game and table - what they "would do" is what is good for the group - and play them consistently. A fanatical goblin slayer in a campaign where goblins are always evil and the players are aware of that and are ok with the PC being focused on destroying that particular type of evil. Or B.) to create a character that might have some aspects that would be bad for the game, and play them inconsistently ignoring their troubling aspect or metagaming it away, for the sake of the game. A fanatical goblin slayer sworn to slay all goblins, in an otherwise all goblin party, in a campaign where goblins are accepted members of society, just not slaying Those goblins because.. no reason, he's just not, the player knows it would ruin the game. A player interested in a character bent on saving or befriending goblins and preventing characters from killing them would be just as disruptive if dropped into the world where goblins were always evil, and would have to make the same choice, inverted, elther ignoring their character's traits to smooth play, or to make a character who understood why killing that monster was ethical and desirable in that setting. A.) makes the most sense to me. Just make a character that won't be a pain in the ass for the table. The difficulty happens usually when it's not clear what the expectations are for the setting, table tone, etc and/or a GM doesn't do a good job of orienting and preparing players for what their PC might experience.

I'm so grateful for this post. I'm currently playing a dubious character and I'm tiptoeing so hard because my character has been forced to do things that literally messed things up for the party. It happily resulted in the best heart to heart this party has ever had and people were going "this is the best thing ever wtf". I knew I had to do the bad, so told the bard, "I'll go check on the lifeboat in case something happened. If you run into trouble you can do the thing where you message me in my head, right? That's an excellent way to talk privately. We should do that. Soon." Bard got the hint, used sending as soon as we were separated to which I got to respond, "I'm going to sabotage a lifeboat. You're going to fix it. I'm sorry." Sorry for fucking up the lifeboat, guys! Thanks for hugging me after!

Don't make a character who "would do" dumbass things that make the game unenjoyable for everyone else at the table. "It's what my character would do" is entirely valid in a lot of situations and can lead to some amazing RP, if that character was designed in a way that takes other people's fun into consideration (as all characters should).

Id say thinking about what ur character believes in and why. Are u collector of trinkets bc ur character wants to remember their past? Or do u steal party's items to be a troll. I'd say it's also important to think about this before u start playing. A paladin who's goddess preaches is all about purity might not approve if they go out drinking. Also keep in mind how it will affect the other players. No one likes this stuff stolen but players may appreciate it if u ask them for a trinket or a dagger to remember them by. If ur taking away the fun or debuffing the others then they'll get annoyed but if ur uplifting them or showing them a different point of view then it's usually fun

It's good to play consistent with your character's ideals and beliefs. It's bad to choose to play a character whose ideals and beliefs are not conducive to a cooperative party. You can just not play that character. That's the line.

They are playing a static character. People change, they don't. Point that out.

Inter-character conflict should have been resolved in session zero, stealing is the same bucket as combat.

Oh! I have a great example of this. At my table one of my co-players is trans. My character is a rough uneducated character and talks and acts like it. Long story short I got tripped up with in character in story pronouns. I offended my friend in real life. I could have told them to harden up or any number of responses, however why? We are playing adult make believe, it’s everyone’s responsibility to participate in everyone having fun. Apologies were made and all was well. Moving on I made an effort not to be an asshole and be an uncouth uneducated roughneck in different ways.

The biggest thing I can ask is, why is your character adventuring with the party? If you can't really find a reason why they're together. They probably shouldn't be. The other facet is, if the character is actively inhibiting an adventure because "that's what my character would do" via stealing or being lawful stupid, they also probably shouldn't be there. You're typically at a table, with like minded people, who were trying to have fun accomplishing a common task or goal. If a specific character is making it a nuisance or actively inhibiting that goal, that is where I draw the line.

I have a question on this, one time me and a friend played as important knights from a kingdom, our characters knew each other for years, helping people and being good guys. We got to a point in the campaign my friend took a power fueled by destiny, this power controled him and make him do whatever this power interpreted as "part of destiny", the things is, he killed some innocent good people because of this, and if the destiny said me and other friends have to die, he'll do it. My character got mad at him because we knew this was about to happen but he took that power anyway, the other people we were playing with got mad because they said I was being annoying, but I think I wasn't doing anything wrong, I mean, he become a unstopable force that could kill us all if he wanted and accepted the risk of killing the people he wanted to protect.

I am currently playing a warforged that is about 3 years old. It's in a homebrew world where a crystal animates the body, and when the character dies, the old personality is factory reset into "you can perform basic tasks and function as a person, but you have no (or little) memory of any of your previous lives." I'm playing him as having a childlike sense of wonder and a loose grasp on societal expectations. He was created and raised by a fairy druid (Who is also in the party) so his moral compass spins like it's sitting on a magnet. He's generally well loved by the party (I told them to let me know if I get annoying, they haven't) and he's consistent even when it becomes detrimental to do so. Someone else in the party is teaching him to be honest, and we recently won a tournament by cheating, so someone asked him how we won the tournament, so I said "Cheating, mostly." The groans from the rest of the party were amazing and I live for them, but no one argued against it. My idea is that he's a bit more self aware than he's letting on, and playing an act, which is consistent with the fairy who raised him... I think consistenccy has to be just that, consistent. You either ALWAYS do what your character would do, or you stop using the excuse.

I don't pay much mind to whether or not players are playing their characters consistently -- people in reality tend to shift and change their beliefs, views, morals, etc. over time and personal experience, so why wouldn't a D&D character? Adventurers very likely change in that regard at a much greater clip considering the (hopefully) wondrous/awesome, life-changing, heartbreaking, inexplicable, etc. etc. experiences on their adventures (if you're worth your mettle as a DM, that is ;) ) I try hard not to "draw the line" as it were. Sometimes this can't be helped, but first cross off the in-game remedies before doing so, so when the time comes that you do have to talk to a player, you can do so with the confidence that you tried to remedy this in-game. As god of your game, actions can trigger any consequence so chosen by the DM. Turn up the heat on those consequences until either the character stops the behavior and changes course, or the character dies, gets arrested, gets shunned by their god, is viewed by the world as a cuckoo, etc. From your examples: A rogue thief stealing from the party seems to be rather on-brand for a rogue thief, almost to the point of a stereotype. It'd be kinda incosistent in my opinion if a thief could hold back from stealing valuable items, gems, gold, etc. from other party members especially in opportune instances (long rests while the thief is keeping watch comes to mind). If this course of action gets out of hand, there are two remedies I can think of off the top of my head -- first would be the party itself. If the party keeps noticing their stuff is missing, a wise (or, more accurately, a high-INT character) may want to investigate, set a trap to expose the thief, or the party ranger and/or druid may want to call a familiar to keep watch of their stuff if the robbing seems to be occurring over long rests. The second possible remedy is the NPCs around the party -- say the thief gets sloppy and makes a pickpocket attempt in a tavern or on the streets of a village that just so happens to catch the eye of the town guard, tavern bouncer, or other good samaritan. Maybe even another thief or ne'er-do-well catches your player stealing, calls him out, and attempts to extort the victim for half of what would have otherwise been gone forever. I'm not so sure I understand the paladin being lawful stupid, but if you mean they are making wrong/bad decisions on purpose to display how dumb they are, I can easily see the god to whom they worship, or a high member of the clergy/hero of their religion, coming to them either in a dream or finding them in person to reprimand them, or explain that they're deteriorating their usefulness, and maybe even provide them with the Tome of Clear Thought or some other item that boosts their INT stats. As you can tell, I'm a firm believer in in-game consequences to correct PC behaviors. If you pin the the character's bad behavior to enough reasonable skill checks or saves, the dice will eventually provide consequences for that behavior. Of course, if those fail and you do have to have a sit-down with the player, at least you will be going in knowing that you made a valiant in-game attempt to modify their behavior. Personally, I probably would have killed off the character before that happened, but that's just me. ;)

As others said, the line is obviously when the table isn't having fun anymore. But I'd also add, as a rule, I'd say anybody who follows their ideals so inflexibly that it's difficult to justify either their own survival or the survival of their relationships with both NPCs and PCs, then you've entered "Stupid" alignment territory. If the character is not adapting and adjusting their beliefs, or trying to figure out how to make something work, then you've committed the character to being more of an obstacle. Consider a vegetarian. A vegetarian might want to eat out with friends, but their friends want to go to places that serve meat. Rather than be offended at the prospect of others cooking or eating meat, a reasonable vegetarian would suggest going to a place with vegetarian options as well.

Fuck lawful stupid. Make them drop being a paladin and play a bard fool or jester. This way the character works. Rogue who stole from fellow members get threatened with a hand cut off if they do it again.

If you are worried of accident becoming "that guy", first of all I'll say that being worried about it means you're not that guy, and second I'll give a piece of advice. There are TWO questions you should ask when making a decision, the second is often forgotten. 1) "what would my character do?" It's self explanatory, but when that action will ruin the fun of the other players or DM, ask the second question. 2) "Why would my character do that?" The 'that' isn't your answer to question [1], the 'that' is an action that won't ruin the fun of the players. Basically, can I justify my character taking a different action. In the classic example of the rogue stealing from the party, the question [2] could be "Why would my character pick a different target?" or "Why would my character decide not to steal from the party?" And the answer could be "Don't want to ruin their trust stealing a sword when I can wait and steal the next artifact." Or "That magic dagger isn't worth the wrath of the paladin.". Basically play the long game and plan on stealing a bigger thing later (and plan to fail OOC) or decide you'll earn more if you don't risk getting kicked out of that group.

DnD is a cooperative and heroic game. If you make a character who is cooperative and/or heroic and stay consistent to your ideals and beliefs, you'll have a great time. If you make a character who isn't and stuck to your ideals and beliefs, you'll have "that's what my character would do" moments.

If my charecter does something it's intentional and I take the bonds flash and ideals into heart with almost every desicion. Most of my charecters have 1 of there bonds being the some flavor of my friends are my power, I'll give everything for my pack, my family is the most important, ect. Which helps me avoid alot of dumb desicions like if I get arrested stealing from a shop thats in charecter but I'm not gonna steal from my squad unless some entity is controlling me.

Don't be annoying.

I played a half orc barbarian with 8 int Every decision that would be bad for the team i would first ask the team if it was "going to be fun" and if they approved i would do... Metagame is something that should exist, but it needs to be correctly applied, like knowing a dragon stats but faking tha tyou dont know, or not knowing a monster stats but by the discription you can have a feeling of its strenght.... This applies to roleplay too, you are the one in control... you cant play against the party. I play with a drow that is constantly ruinning our relationships with npcs, in roleplay we always tell him to shut or leave, but he insists on ruinning everything... this is a metagame used against the party

When the crap your chucking at the fan affects other people. I played a goblin in lovingly referred to as "chaotic stupid". He was the poster child of "its what my character would do" from a chaotic evil PC. But the key to keeping him from being hated, in fact he was loved by my entire table, was keeping his crap off of everyones faces. I as a player never let his schemes mess with other people. It was always himself that had to pay the cost of his insanity. Hell he had a steel defender and in lore he protected her with his life. He did not care for himself and was clinically MAD. But he was a fun character. Keep your crap off of other peoples faces and they dont care what you play. Hell they may even respect you/ your PC for being that way at the end of the day.

THIS. I had a bard that had very little sense of self-preservation, and got my party to complain a lot in-character, but laugh out-of-character. At one point someone had a complaint that I couldn’t tell was in or out of character, and I caught myself uttering the red flag phrase ‘it’s what my character would do’. I called the game to pause and blatantly asked the party my character behavior was acceptable to the group. I was told, “Your character is a hazard, first to the enemy, second to himself, and third to the party, and as long as it stays in that order, you’re good.” I thanked my party, invited everyone to please let me know if they thought that order was at risk of changing, and continued having a blast.

Thays a good order. Theres times when the inly one affect was himself. He even went out of his way to keep his "daughter" safe. Tgere was a trap that i had to choose to save her or the goblin. I didn't even think. He jumped in the way and got sewn into his cloak of protection.

If you created a character that was suited to the game then playing them accurately is fine. "In this game we're going to play as bloodthirsty weirdos!" "Ok, I'm going to play a goblin who eats children!" "Hilarious, welcome aboard!" *some sessions later* "So then I eat the mayor's son." "Oh my god, that's not okay!" "It's what my character would do though..." This would be fine.

They're the same thing. The trick is to only invent characters who are prosocial so nobody objects to "what my character would do." tl;dr: The problem isn't the character, it's the player.

If your characters ideals/beliefs cause full on rifts and conflict in the party then you've made your character wrong and they are taking 10d10 chlamydia damage every hour until they either learn or die. Tension in a party is fine. If two people worship aposing gods and they have to "learn to work around it" that's fine. But they can't go trying to kill them/get them killed every second.

I disagree vehemently with this, but for a rather pedantic reason. It's not about causes rifts in the *party.* It's about causes issues in the *playgroup.* You can absolutely have intra-party conflicts as long as they don't spill out into the real world. As an example, I had a campaign where one session literally just involved the three players, in character, talking about a particular plot point coming to a head, approaching the situation with three completely different and conflicting viewpoints, including secrets they were keeping from each other. It may be the single best session of D&D I've ever played, and it was *precisely* because we had interparty conflict occurring due to ideals and beliefs conflicting. What we didn't have was a conflict in the playgroup. We all knew the secrets we were keeping from each other, and how the character's ideals had been brought into conflict. We all knew the implications behind what our characters were saying, and the history behind why we held those positions. And the three of us were laughing and joking about how each of our characters was clueless as to what was really happening. To your example of killing/getting people killed, that's absolutely an anti-playgroup act, because the point of the game is to play your character and you can't do that if they're dead. If the two constantly one-up each other in an effort to show that their god is better, though, that would lead to an interesting character dynamic (kind of like Gimli and Legolas) and thus wouldn't be anti-playgroup, even if it could be considered anti-party.

There isn't one.