Antagonism

Jun. 14th, 2010 03:37 pm
yodathedark: (evil looks good)
[personal profile] yodathedark
The point has been raised that I have a lot of antagonistic characters. I'm not sure I agree, but I want to do a run down anyway.

ETA: I'll be fair, the comment was "characters with antagonist views".

Laine (Lost)
Laine is stubborn, angry and honest. He doesn't trust most other Lost (they've given him no reason to), and he dislikes a lot of things - seeing them as just making yourself out to be more like Them. This includes Wyrd, Contracts, Entitlements and Courts. And he doesn't like swearing himself to follow others - that's just swearing yourself into slavery. He won't stop anyone else from going against his opinion. And he keeps his opinion to himself for the most part. No one's interested in what he has to say, so why bother saying it?

He joined Summer for several reasons, the most obvious of which was that there was no one else. And he did it for the good of the Freehold because he'd found out about a crisis and he was going to be fucked if he was going to have everything fall apart because of it.

He has deep-seated principles, and there are only a few things that will make him break them. Other characters' opinions aren't one of them. He is steadfastly and obstinately Courtless - and he won't take threats about his choice lying down.

But when it comes down to it, he'll do just about anything for his mates, or for Dunasheen if its needed.

ETA: He also doesn't trust anyone who needs to be under a pledge to keep their word. In Lost society, people who don't keep their word shouldn't be trusted anyway. After all, if they'll break their word so casually, can you guarantee they won't just break a pledge as well?


Nathan (Forsaken)
He's an arrogant, pissed off, headstrong cop who doesn't see why werewolves should get away with mortal law. On the other hand, he's reached a point of "if I don't see it, it didn't happen". He's also arranging cover-ups and finding information.

But he doesn't get on with people outside of Edinburgh, and he has no reason to. That's outside of his territory, outside his city - why the hell should he care? He's signed up for the Hunt and that's the only good reason he's really been given to step outside Edinburgh for the most part.

He's not a social character really. He's blunt, but he's honest, and he won't mess you around.


Charlie Wax (Requiem)
Now, Charlie is an antagonistic motherfucker. He's designed to cause trouble, make people think about what they're prepared to do, and put some viciousness into the game. I made a pledge to myself when I wrote Charlie - that I would never back down from doing something because it was a PC or a friend.

He's supposed to be a monster, he's supposed to be horrific. If he gets killed, he gets killed, but I'm going to see how far I can push things first.


Henderson (Awakening)
Now, Henderson I would never have said was antagonistic. He's a social character, open and friendly, looking to make the world a better place from the ground up.

On the other hand, he seems to have some fairly strong views on things. This has come out more this year as I've been playing through him, and it's caused issue.

Thing is, that's how it's supposed to be for him. He's fueled by passion, and fire burns within him. He's a firestarter, a rabble-rouser. He can make people march on Parliament with a few words - that's the type of character he is. He's an activist, and he knows where he's heading.

But fire goes where it will, and it's hard to control. As we witnessed at the last Anglesey game.


Rocker (Created)
Rocker is an individualist. He doesn't really get other people, and he's not one for making the first move. He really only cares about his music and his friends/Throng.

He's prone to anger and outbursts of rage on occasion, but for the most part he's happy to sit on the sidelines watching.

On the other hand, he's a Promethean. He's strange - go figure.


Spook (Mortals)
Spook was a complete headcase. Bugnuts crazy. And worse if you hit his triggers. I enjoyed Spook, I enjoyed playing Spook - he had a very different take on the world.

I can't say that everyone else felt the same.


You know what? That's my primaries done (well, Laine's not a primary, but...). I'm bored of this now, and I can't be arsed to continue. That's my current primaries though - I've lost a couple that weren't antagonistic at all. At least not until William's buttons were pushed.

I wrote this out, and now, now I'm not sure I want to post it. Because my own stubbornness is kicking in and I don't see why I should have to justify my characters to anyone.

I'm sick of all the bullshit that's happening right now, and I'm half-tempted to say "fuck you all" and leave the society. I won't because in the end, either someone will convince me to stay, or I'll decide that the friendships are worth the bullshit. But I'm sorely tempted.

Date: 2010-06-14 02:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] slick-mink.livejournal.com
I don't really speak with your characters enough to know which are antagonistic. I mean, Charlie quite clearly is, and comes across that way. You certainly didn't hold back at all with him.

The only other one I've spoken to was Laine, and he didn't really come across as an antagonist type at all. Just...well, a guy. You know? People are like that. They hold grudges, don't care that much about people who aren't their friends, want to sort out other things. I didn't get the impression he was being actively hostile towards everyone, just one.

Date: 2010-06-14 03:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] viking42.livejournal.com
I would not say antagonistic as much as stubborn (except for Charlie). This happens in real life. People have different views, and conflict ensues.

Now, in a game with supernaturals, where you can change people's will, it can exaggerate this, and no surprise. Thus any attempt at forcibly changing someone's opinion, with either threats of violence, or supernatural powers, should be seen as the worst invasion of privacy possible, and people should react accordingly.


Nathan is a werewolf. Territory is important. No problem there. It is something which does kind of gets ignored in favour of having a national game, but that's the way it works.

Henderson and Anglesey is nothing unusual. He is a Free Council, questioning the truths the Atlantean orders accept, and that is entirely as it should be. From an IC perspective, that is perfectly fine, and to be fair, I'd say (from my point of view) Double-Click is more antagonistic in views (the kind of Free Council that would attack Athenaeums and 'let the information free').
However, from an IC perspective, I see nothing wrong with that situation. That's just playing the game as you should, and I wish more people did.
The discussion we had about freedom of information? Very good.

Laine, like Snaggle, hold very strong views and aren't willing to compromise, from what I have seen. This, I guess, means you are seen as antagonistic. Although Laine did join Summer to save the freehold, which I guess is a compromise.
The similarities are striking, though...Snaggle just is more vocal about his opinions.

Date: 2010-06-14 03:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] derekct.livejournal.com
Your characters and how you play them is up to you. I had people moan about one of my characters in OWOD, but I had fun. Take care and I did like Spook as a character.

Date: 2010-06-14 05:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nikoliborsh.livejournal.com
Your antagnonism is weak when met with the sheer magnitude of mine own ;-)

Date: 2010-06-14 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kathminchin.livejournal.com
I think that characters who have strong opinions are more fun to play and play with. Whilst I know you've said you won't stop with Charlie; I don't believe you won't consider other people's enjoyment.

Snaggle's hugely antagonistic and yet has a loyal fan base IC and OOC. I don't see them being an issue unless other people make it one.

Date: 2010-06-14 08:11 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] suave-steve.livejournal.com
It all depends on what context people are using the label antagonistic really.

Date: 2010-06-15 12:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ulaidhan.livejournal.com
Any character attempting to adhere to a visible set of morals is at risk of being identified as "antagonistic".

Any character that makes public a desire to see others behave morally almost certainly will be pegged that way.

Likewise, questioning the status quo tends to be seen as antagonistic - even if such questions are explicitly part of the setting.

Personally, I've found every character of yours with which I've interacted to be a positive asset to the game of which they were part.

Date: 2010-06-16 06:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yodathedark.livejournal.com
Thanks, Andrew. :D

Date: 2010-06-15 02:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] meltedcandle.livejournal.com
If you don't agree with people or have vocal views on things you're labelled as antagonistic. Personally I love the conflict (social, physical etc) that comes out of things like that. I don't think your pc's that mine have interacted with are what I would label antagonistic. Apart from Charlie.

The others just stick to their guns, which is perfectly reasonable and it's not like they don't compromise, or don't have good reasons not to when applicable.

I think it's mainly people possibly just not liking your style of play, or the characters that you play in relation to their own rather than your pc's being actually antagonistic in general.

Date: 2010-06-16 06:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yodathedark.livejournal.com
And that's probably hitting the nail bang on the head there.

Not that I've ever made characters that really conform to other people's idea of paradigm...

Date: 2010-06-16 06:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steewart.livejournal.com
I don't do the system so I couldn't comment on your characters but I do do a LOT of LARPing so I can sympathise. In my past experience, there's usually been one of two main reasons for someone to be called that when they're not:

1) It was from a GM/Ref type when you've been going against the grain/not playing to their divine plan/not sitting there and being spoon-fed like a nice agreeable bitch. I personally like Characters who do this so f*ck 'em! :P

2) They discovered a new word today and want to use it as much as they can to make themselves sound clever whilst being mildy insulting. Twats!

Obviously, by saying stuff like this, I could be classed as being Antagonistic... but meh! Fuck 'em! ;)

Date: 2010-06-16 06:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yodathedark.livejournal.com
'tuart, I think I love you. :D

You say the most awesome things. :)

Date: 2010-06-16 06:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steewart.livejournal.com
I was trying to be honest/unbias and just running on past experience with that kind of shizzle. Was I maybe a little too close to the bullseye perhaps? ;)

Date: 2010-06-16 06:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yodathedark.livejournal.com
I've had those experiences, yes... :)

Date: 2010-06-16 08:19 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] steewart.livejournal.com
Well, if you love the system and if you have friends there that you like interacting in that environment, don't let the odd inconsequential dick-wad spoil your fun or drive you out of the system - you're bigger and better than them (plus it'd be more fun to stay and make the fuckers squirm).

I hope my opinions/advice has been helpful. ;)

Date: 2010-06-16 08:55 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yodathedark.livejournal.com
Stalwart 'tuart opinions are always gleefully received. :D

June 2011

S M T W T F S
   1234
56 7891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 22nd, 2017 08:52 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios