Character Quirks: Characters on the Edge

Originally posted April 25, 2012

In response to this week’s podcast, I decided to discuss character quirks, specifically my favorite quirk: that the character exists in that gray space between good and evil and that the game will ultimately decide what side they choose.

When I make characters I don’t tend to focus on their quirks per se, but rather the overall concept. From that initial idea I then work my way down detailing the character based on my vision of him or her. Sometimes I backtrack to create a past so that I can better fill in their character sheet. Oddly I always choose the name last. But I almost always add that element of undecided morality.

It's not that the character hasn’t thought about morality but rather that they have yet to be placed in a situation where they are forced to choose what side of the line they stand on. Seeing the character make that choice (whatever it is) is often the best part of the game for me. I am always excited to see characters grow and stretch beyond their original concepts so by including this quirk I can ensure that the game will be fun for me.

My favorite characters have all made that choice, though the nature of their choices have differed greatly. Derendel, my D&D 3.0 Sorcerer, began as somewhat naive good-natured person. But in the campaign he was faced with an increasingly hostile population of commoners who hated him and his allies despite their efforts to save the world. As his friends died trying to stop the dark forces behind it all, he became very cynical and grew to despise the easily swayed peasants. In the end I wouldn’t call him a villain but he was no longer a good person.

The opposite shift occurred with my D&D 3.5 character, Erebus. A glory seeking Fighter/Rogue, he was focused on getting more attention and wealth for himself. But in that campaign he was continually tempted by an ancient evil bound within a book the party was seeking to destroy. It would whisper to him about his coming doom and promised him power if freed. Faced with this choice however Erebus rejected the power and refocused his energies on destroying the artifact for the greater good, no matter the cost to himself. In this case he really became the hero he was playing at.

However it is fun to play the villain sometimes. My last example character, the Atomic Man, went down this path. A tormented superhero in the Mutants & Masterminds system, his powers over radiation had killed most of his friends and family prior to the start of the game. Ironically he was recruited by an organization that could remove his powers (which was his goal at the time) but which refused to do so. They claimed to be working to help the world but later it became clear that they were hiding and draining the abilities of superpowered characters in the world. After several betrayals, the Atomic Man, never balanced to begin with, began to embrace the dark side of his abilities. Amusingly, many of the player characters were in denial of his descent into darkness until it was too late. Towards the end he would kill hostages before the villain could use them against his group and generally out-eviled the bad guys. His final day rampage resulted in the atomic destruction of Mt. Saint Helens, part of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, and much of the Pentagon before the group confronted the true mastermind (who died in an atomic fireball).

All in all, I have really enjoyed playing these choices. I root for the characters' better natures but revel in the darkness they might fall in. But it is that moment of choice that is most poignant to me. When they cease to be on the edge.