Log in

No account? Create an account
On being typecast - Her Most Regal Majesty, the Queen of Snark
void where prohibited, except by law
On being typecast
Had an utterly fab time at King's Musketeers this weekend, of which there may be more froth later.  However, it was pointed out to me that some found my performance surprising as I "always" play evil.  I was in a sort of retrospective mode, as this is the tenth anniversary of my first UK freeforms weekender, so I went back to work out if this was indeed the case.


I think what this tells me is that my evil characters are way more memorable than my good ones.  My favourites are probably (in chronological order) Greta Savos, Cassandra, Maud Gonne, Suzanne de Batz-Castelmore, which suggests I have no particular preference for good over evil.

Thoughts appreciated, particularly if you've played in these games.
13 comments or Leave a comment
katexxxxxx From: katexxxxxx Date: February 19th, 2013 10:49 pm (UTC) (Link)
You were pretty scary as Catherine the Great! AND you stole your husband back! :D
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 19th, 2013 10:53 pm (UTC) (Link)
What can I say? He mysteriously regained competence, and became worth keeping. Plus I could ruin him any time he became inconvenient thanks to the evidence of treason I acquired during the game.
omentide From: omentide Date: February 19th, 2013 10:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've not played any of those but, in general, I think that evil characters are more memorable.

Ummmm. Good characters are just..... good.

Evil characters tend to be evil in very individual ways.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 19th, 2013 11:00 pm (UTC) (Link)
Interesting. Greta Savos was a revolutionary, Michaela Quinn a healer, Charlotte du Berry annoying and spoilt but pretty much harmless, and Suzanne de Batz-Castlemore a thrill seeking ingenue. They don't seem homogeneous at all to me.

(I'll give you Lady Beatrix, but that game was based around myth and fairy tale, so a certain simplicity is to be expected.)
karohemd From: karohemd Date: February 19th, 2013 11:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've only played in four of those and I think our characters were in different layers of those games so I can't tell.
This question might also depend on the definition of what constitutes evil.
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 19th, 2013 11:28 pm (UTC) (Link)
I've tried to take that into account by judging them externally according to broadly conventional morality (that's why Catherine the Great is evil, even though arguably she had Russia's best interests at heart).

Of course, none of the characters subjectively thought they were evil. Greta Savos and Maud Gonne were both revolutionaries. The difference lay in how much they believed the end justified the means.

Edited at 2013-02-19 11:34 pm (UTC)
karohemd From: karohemd Date: February 19th, 2013 11:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
That's what I meant.
Also, observers might consider scheming to be evil while others won't go that far.
undyingking From: undyingking Date: February 20th, 2013 09:08 am (UTC) (Link)
I didn't play in any of these earlier weekend games, but having witnessed your antics in stacks of short freeforms over the years :-) I tend to think of you as one of those very useful versatile players who can make a good job of good, evil, complicated or inbetween characters. So in eg. Reading Between the Lines at Consequences just now, I would have been happy to have cast you in any of the roles, and know we would have got value out of you :-)

The main thing I think is that you (seem to) think properly about what is really motivating the character and driving their behaviour: and that makes for a convincing and consistent portrayal, wherever on the spectrum they are.

Edited at 2013-02-20 09:08 am (UTC)
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 20th, 2013 08:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
Thank you. Those are kind words. I certainly aspire to make all my characters believable human beings.
From: (Anonymous) Date: February 20th, 2013 09:59 am (UTC) (Link)

on being typecast

I'd agree that it's all too easy to be typecast as 'oh she plays evil'. I also like to play a wide range, partly for the variety, but also so that I'm less predictable when I want to do evil under cover. Looks like you have a good range of both up there on your list. People do tend to remember it when you stitch them over much more readily than when you help them, or save the day, unless you die dramatically doing so. Hero's that survive their good deeds just fade away.... Villains are remembered with lots of 'if only I'd done x, I could have stopped her!', with much pondering on how it could have been done. Or 'that was cool, I saved the world', of course...
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 20th, 2013 08:49 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: on being typecast

Yes, I think you're right. And you've put your finger on the other reason I like to mix it up. If no-one knows whether I'm good or evil, that makes them much easier to stitch up. Which was partly why the "you always play evil" comment was worrying me.
illithidbix From: illithidbix Date: February 20th, 2013 09:13 pm (UTC) (Link)
Not played with those Ses so limitedly useful PoV.

Now, I think your Maelstrom characters I interacted with tended to have a sharp tongue so are you sure people are doing that thing where they assume
Meanie = Evil?

I frankly do typecast myself.
My characters tend to be either: Philosophers (ofter religiousy) or Jerks.
With an moral alignment of either: Zealous Good or Diet Evil

Sure I try and give other types a try, but my most successful and longlasting characters all seem to be those archtypical "Tom characters".

Variety in roleplay is always an awesome thing to see and one to aspire to, but many of us do have archetypes we find far easier to play than others. I personally suck at mercenary or similar profit driven characters myself.
So whilst there maybe a sense of Deja Vu, providing my cahracters.

Fit and hopefully *reinforce* the setting.
Are fun for me to play.
Are fun for other people to roleplay with and add to their game.

I'm happy playing them.

Edited at 2013-02-20 09:19 pm (UTC)
sesquipedality From: sesquipedality Date: February 20th, 2013 09:36 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well I am a bit of a mouthy cow, but then Popova was probably my least vocal character ever. She hardly ever spoke. Not sure if you had much to do with her.

Yeah. Personally, I can't do sexy. I just can't. I have all the sex appeal of something with no sex appeal. Possibly a self-confidence thing.

We're all limited by our own physical and mental constraints, and I suppose I do tend not to play characters without much of an agenda because ... well, where's the story?

I'll be interested to know what you think of Concordia in Empire. She's my attempt to push my boundaries and play in a space I'm not comfortable in to see if I can become comfortable there.
13 comments or Leave a comment