| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the term special snowflake because I see it most often used to malign a creative player. I don't want us pre-judging our players before we have them at our tables.
As a GM, it's our job to make every shine with great RP and a chance to share in the storyline. If you do it right, everyone has a good time no matter how weird the character.
Hmm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Snowflake" is a fine term in theory, but it's starting to get dragged into the same "political lingo ghetto" that has claimed so many of its beloved brothers and sisters, if you take my meaning. Sometimes a word just ends up trumped by its associations.
I feel like "theorycrafting" has always been a touch on the needlessly derisive side. People mean varying things when they talk about it, and too often I see it applied as a blanket term to all optimizers or critics of "game balance".
That's not the real problem. The real phenomenon is the evolution of the gaming social sphere, and there are folks who are attention hogs. And they will create crippled characters such as deaf-mute monks in order to hog more attention time, because the party now has to center and orient around this character. The special snowflake is the character that the party has to totally orient itself around, or the GM has to do backflips to accomodate it's existence... as per the aforementioned Jedi example.
Gotta be careful though, some players probably go that far because they don't feel any attention is paid at all to their idea.
For example, I've made lots of tieflings, drow, and other characters that by default should not be treated as just another human by the world, yet I feel like I'm playing humans most of the time because neither players nor gm treat the characters like they are supposed to be treated.
A tiefling is supposed to work extra hard to earn the party's trust, far more than some random dwarf stranger would have to. Going to town is supposed to be an exercise in not killing every npc that throws a rude remark at the "dirty evil devil touched."
Yet that almost never happens.
If a player is trying to be a character with something that should be remarked upon, but that factor always gets ignored, I can see why the response would to go overboard just trying to get a character that is treated in some way as not normal.
I figure it would help at least some of those ridiculous snowflake players, if you get their character toned down a bit but then during their share of the spotlight, actually bring their oddities into play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play a lot of tengu.
Part of that is imparting to folks that they really aren't looked on in that favorable of a light for those that don't know it.
Conversely, a goodly proportion of GMs that have run for my tengu *do* treat them as they are considered 'in-canon', so it's refreshing to see that.
The one I haven't seen a lot of 'guff' for is my 'special' half-human (orc) who was raised by dwarves but is favored by Torag for unknown reasons.
Kind of odd, that.
This being said, it's been amusing to go into situations with a bunch of half-orcs playing Shardra (iconic shaman) and getting a better reaction from the half-orcs than... the half-orc PCs...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I undertand some folks want that outsider experience when choosing an exotic race. Keep in mind sometimes the GM doesnt want to really delve into that type of story. The GM may want the game to be about the adventure. Sometimes communication can clear this up. Other times the playstyles are too different to reconcile. This is where folks saying this like "special snowflake" ruined the game comes about. Really folks should simply say we dont want the same game and move on. Though things can get emotional when grous fall apart dems da breaks.
There is a difference between acknowledging an outsider as an outsider vs making a story exploration out of it.
I've rarely ever had my outsider characters even acknowledged as such. You could swap 99% of my characters for a normal human, and the pc/npc interactions would fit perfectly.
Like GM Rednel said, it us a two-way street, and rarely is there a satisfactory response from the other direction.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What an outcast race does is force the GM to choose. Either they must devote precious play time to dealing with the same issue all the time, something that will play out the same every time, or ignore it, which strikes a blow against the verisimilitude of the setting when people treat the dangerous outcast as just another human. Either way, the player wins. It is not about playing a unique character, it is about power. The way I see it, players have a duty to make characters that fit the campaign both in avoiding repetitive scenes like "oh noes I can't speak their language, let's play another charades", "oh noes I have no idea about their customs, let's play another mistaken shoplifting", or "oh noes, I am a monster to these villagers who should try to kill me on sight and probably my mates as well for associating with me, let's play another round of villagers get really upset but will not just kill or banish us for some reason", and in making characters that would be motivated by the hooks given for the adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, the player wins.
I think that your chosen terminology here is a bit concerning. You phrase it in a very "Put-Upon GM vs. Entitled Player" manner. It sort of reminds me of the way these forums were a few years back, where any thread even vaguely touching on such issues instantly spiraled down into the same old posters feuding over how bad players or GMs are these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, it isn't a win for the player to be treated as just another human when their chosen race is anything but. Especially when that race is explicitly called out as having certain issues.
Second, it does not need to always play out the same. How it plays out is where creativity enters the game.
Third, it is bad to have extreme issues, such as needing to play charades, but it is actually good to have a point of tension. Stories are always about conflict, of one form or another. Having a character that is initially regarded as an untrustworthy outcast where ever they go, is a point of tension that can drive drama and conflict.
Points of conflict can also be used to leverage pcs to follow the story without being obvious and contrived about it.
That said, it needs to be handled properly. Ignoring it is unsatisfying, but overplaying it or taking it to extremes is even worse.
It can easily be included in a game without being any more impactful than any other aspect of a pc that gets screen time (like linking a pc's bg into the current story). And I think it should be included.
The difference is what kind of outcast you are playing. Being the kind of different who wants to be accepted and works hard to fit can be a good reason to develope strong ties with the rest of the party. Roleplaying a character's quest for acceptance is very rewarding if done right.
But if you are playing the kind of outcast who doesn't trust anybody and doesn't want to, offends everybody pretending not to know the culture and acts weird all the time just to prove how special he is, then you're being disruptive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Either way, the player wins.I think that your chosen terminology here is a bit concerning. You phrase it in a very "Put-Upon GM vs. Entitled Player" manner. It sort of reminds me of the way these forums were a few years back, where any thread even vaguely touching on such issues instantly spiraled down into the same old posters feuding over how bad players or GMs are these days.
Disruptive players are, unfortunately, not exactly a new prospect. After having played with enough of them, I can state quite clearly that there are many disruptive players who seek exactly to mess up the campaign they are in, by push or by shove. This makes them a significant issue for GMs to deal with. My point with what you quoted was simply that: The player is fine with spending time doing charades and fine with weakening the verisimilitude of the setting. They get a kick out of both. If you wish to solve the problem, you have to understand it.
Of course, some players want to play strange PCs for other reasons. The difference is, those who do not want to disrupt are happy if the GM wants to integrate the weird race into the setting. The disruptive player will feel it defeats the purpose.
Aye, but your comment implies that all players of strange characters would find it a win-win scenerio, rather than just the ones who are aiming for disruption of the game.
For me, the problem is "integrating" the strangeness as an excuse to ignore it and treat the character as just another human.
Although, when playing published settings, I often give my characters some reason to not know much about the wider world (i.e. raised on the fringe of civilization). That way, my ignorance of the setting is completely in-character and can be handled without disruption. I've yet to encounter a situation where this became a problem.
|
For me, the problem is "integrating" the strangeness as an excuse to ignore it and treat the character as just another human.
And a lot of people are okay with it, because they don't want bigotry in their game. If you talk it over with your GM and they decide to have it in then cool, but I know a lot of GMs that would be uncomfortable trying to portray bigotry or play bigoted NPCs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Playing a not accepted race gives rise to a few scenes: The language barrier, the gawkers, people refusing service, terrified children, getting run out of town, strange customs, and being accused of something wrongly. ALL of these are scenes that deal with NPCs in settlements. They result in improvisation, have big risks or terrible consequences. Worse, they are usually not part of the planned stuff in an adventure. What dealing extensively with them does is limit the time available for the adventure itself. And you can be quite certain the player involved is the only one who appreciates it. The other players have nothing to win and much to lose. Further, while the PC may eventually have a good reputation, it takes a good while to get there. While playing those scenes may be stimulating the first one or two times, how do you think the GM and other players feel about it in village #43? Surprisingly, the people in that village are not paragons of tolerance either...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to delve that deeply into it, or at least not bring it up often as that big of a deal.
Most if the time, you can just make snide comments, hike prices on mundane items, etc.
I.E. you might mention the kids picking up their ball and running around the corner blowing raspberries at the pc's approach as part of your description of the place, then leave it at that. The pc might respond with how they suddenly look crestfallen as they follow the group into the tavern. Or maybe the guard at the town growls a warning that the tainted better not make trouble, or else.
Small things like that don't disrupt the game but add to it.
You describe a possible scenerio, but it isn't that hard to avoid even while still recognizing the pc's outcastness.
Further, if the pc deals regularly with certain npcs, then those npcs may treat them more normally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, so stereotyping is cool only so long as no one makes anything of it? It's okay to have dwarves be scraggly and stubborn, but you can't call them out on it? Elves can be aloof, but you can't make remarks about it?
Firstly, if yelling at dwarves for being thick-headed and stubborn is allowable, then what difference is there for doing the same to less classic races?
Secondly, if you don't want to deal with it, then don't allow the race in the first place. Don't tease me by allowing it, then ignoring it (or for those mechanically inclined folks, say they can use the stats but they'll just be a human with unique abilities).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure. If the PC is a half orc or something. If the PC is a bona fide succubus or something else extraordinarily dangerous, or an orc in an area where every family has lost someone to orc hordes, etc, i.e. races the people have pretty reasonable arguments for killing on sight, the problem becomes bigger... if the world is supposed to make sense. There is a limit to what weirdness villagers in a medievalish world will understand.
And of course, a campaign setting without significant intolerance, the weirdness will be treated as mundane.
|
|
Oh, so stereotyping is cool only so long as no one makes anything of it? It's okay to have dwarves be scraggly and stubborn, but you can't call them out on it? Elves can be aloof, but you can't make remarks about it?Stereotyping isn't cool at all.
Firstly, if yelling at dwarves for being thick-headed and stubborn is allowable, then what difference is there for doing the same to less classic races?Many groups might allow that, but a lot won't.
Secondly, if you don't want to deal with it, then don't allow the race in the first place. Don't tease me by allowing it, then ignoring it (or for those mechanically inclined folks, say they can use the stats but they'll just be a human with unique abilities).
"IF you don't want to deal with bigotry then remove those that the bigotry is directed against" is horrible logic. If you and your GM agree to play with your character being misterated becasue of their race that's one thing, but you can't fault other GMs and groups for not wanting that in a game they play to have fun. Moreso if they have to deal with bigotry in the real world already.
Mistreatment is hardly the only aspect here, though it the most likely to cause problems.
But my point is, if tieflings are an outcast people, and a player plays a tiefling, then the player's character should be treated as an outcast, whether heavily (by being barred entry to towns, getting run off by peasants, etc), or mildly (npcs calling them "devil-spawn" instead of their names, etc).
But there are also non-negative ways to react to non-humans, such as commenting on a tiefling's tail "the shopkeep's daughter tries catching your tail before being scolded by the shopkeep."
Making you feel non-human doesn't have to be evil negative stuff, though the negative stuff is the most useful leverage and best story material, if handled properly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But my point is, if tieflings are an outcast people, and a player plays a tiefling, then the player's character should...
And right there is the core of the objection. That last word. It dictates how someone else should play the game. Not: "I play a tiefling and I make a big deal out of the difference of my character." But: "Other people should behave in the way I want them to based on my character choice and if they're not doing that, I call that wrong."
Maybe some of us don't want to sit around leveraging negativity for story material. Perhaps it is conceivable that stories can be created out of positivity and that characterization can come out of something more than excoriating difference. In theory a GM might want to emphasize other aspects of a character or NPC in their story.
And if that's the case, there's only one viable solution...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I GM'd a game in theme similar to we be goblins, except i asked everyone to roll a kobold character. One player, who is known for having a flair for the creative, insisted that her kobold believed it was a minotaur. As the game went on, the other characters (not the players) teased her kobold barbarian about being crazy, because of those beliefs. She played it to the T. She bought a helmet with cow horns on it, and would charge people as part of her raging. She had appropriate rage powers She took the crazy talk, with "one day you'll see!" and really played into the concept. So, I wrote up a PrC for her to take to actually turn into a minotaur while raging (not all at once, it scaled up to a large minotaur by 10th level). I presented it to her, and she accepted it.
Normally, I think some people would get sick of the "special snowflake" player and roll their eyes. When her character actually turned into a minotaur during a major boss fight, it was fantastic. The other characters still thought she was weird, but no longer called her crazy.
I guess my point here is, that as a GM you can completely decide how much a "special snowflake" player does or does not disrupt your campaigns.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
I GM'd a game in theme similar to we be goblins, except i asked everyone to roll a kobold character. One player, who is known for having a flair for the creative, insisted that her kobold believed it was a minotaur. As the game went on, the other characters (not the players) teased her kobold barbarian about being crazy, because of those beliefs. She played it to the T. She bought a helmet with cow horns on it, and would charge people as part of her raging. She had appropriate rage powers She took the crazy talk, with "one day you'll see!" and really played into the concept. So, I wrote up a PrC for her to take to actually turn into a minotaur while raging (not all at once, it scaled up to a large minotaur by 10th level). I presented it to her, and she accepted it.
Normally, I think some people would get sick of the "special snowflake" player and roll their eyes. When her character actually turned into a minotaur during a major boss fight, it was fantastic. The other characters still thought she was weird, but no longer called her crazy.
I guess my point here is, that as a GM you can completely decide how much a "special snowflake" player does or does not disrupt your campaigns.
See, I wouldn't consider that character to be a "special snowflake" in the bad sense. The character certainly has a unique personality, but it sounds like she enhanced the fun of everyone at the table. That's fine. It reaches the "bad" side if the player had insisted that she be allowed to play an actual minotaur starting out, regardless of campaign theme. Bonus points if she then later disrupts adventures because her minotaur won't fit in kobold-sized tunnels.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I GM'd a game in theme similar to we be goblins, except i asked everyone to roll a kobold character. One player, who is known for having a flair for the creative, insisted that her kobold believed it was a minotaur.
Hee hee... "minitaur"...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I GM'd a game in theme similar to we be goblins, except i asked everyone to roll a kobold character. One player, who is known for having a flair for the creative, insisted that her kobold believed it was a minotaur.Hee hee... "minitaur"...
That was one of the things they'd say to tease her character :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I wouldn't consider that character to be a "special snowflake" in the bad sense. The character certainly has a unique personality, but it sounds like she enhanced the fun of everyone at the table. That's fine. It reaches the "bad" side if the player had insisted that she be allowed to play an actual minotaur starting out, regardless of campaign theme. Bonus points if she then later disrupts adventures because her minotaur won't fit in kobold-sized tunnels.
It could have gotten there, though, easily, and had with that player in other games. I realize not all players of this type do not wish to contribute to a group effort, but in her case she truly does. Treating her ideas as a puzzle to be solved rather than just a problem to be handled ended up making the game memorable and enjoyable for all the right reasons :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But my point is, if tieflings are an outcast people, and a player plays a tiefling, then the player's character should...And right there is the core of the objection. That last word. It dictates how someone else should play the game. Not: "I play a tiefling and I make a big deal out of the difference of my character." But: "Other people should behave in the way I want them to based on my character choice and if they're not doing that, I call that wrong."
Maybe some of us don't want to sit around leveraging negativity for story material. Perhaps it is conceivable that stories can be created out of positivity and that characterization can come out of something more than excoriating difference. In theory a GM might want to emphasize other aspects of a character or NPC in their story.
And if that's the case, there's only one viable solution...
My bf is playing an undyne and as she has been among humans and other races for so long she doesn't pay any kind of attention to the racial issue. She treats everyone equally and expects to be treated in the same way. Her big difference is not feeling different and not allowing her differences and other people's racial stereotypes bring her down. I think it affects the game but in a possitive way.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have an example: a friend had a solo campaign where he & the DM put their heads together to come up with the most outrageously powerful paladin they could, and they succeeded. That was all fine and dandy, except that eventually the campaign ended and this friend decided he was interested in DMing himself.
The problem was that he wanted this former-PC (now trapped in eternal service to Bel for very convoluted reasons) to be the front-and-center core of the campaign, going so far as to say that all the players ought to be descendants of said paladin, and the central arc would be a breakout plot for his character. He was also not terribly understanding when we didn't express a lot of interest in the concept. :(
When it was Superman running around in his own campaign, no problem! But then immediately trying to make that same character central to a brand-new campaign when none of the prospective players had any connection to or investment in said character...I think maybe the "special snowflake" label has a usefulness as shorthand for such a situation.
Survey question:
I'm playing a new character (coming in at level 6, almost 7, since my old one RIP'd) and he has the highest STR score in the group by a decent amount (Transmutation Occultist doing what they do best). Now with most characters that our group plays, we usually give them one or two personality quirks, either important or unimportant (I played a Grippli rogue once who went berserk at the scent of cooked chicken). So with this new character, given his high STR, I've given him a little delusion as his quirk. No matter what happens in reality, he believes he's physically weak. So if there's a STR check for moving some big boulder out of the way, and one of the party members asks him to move it, he'll say that he can't and argue (briefly so it doesn't take up a ton of time) that it's impossible. As a show of how impossible it is, he will say, "Look, I can't just walk up to a huge boulder and move it like this!" as he actually moves it (assuming he makes the check). Because of his delusion though, if someone points out that the boulder was moved, he'll say it must have been someone/something else and be very impressed by whomever/whatever did it.
Now is that a case of a "special snowflake" character, and if so, is it inherently good/bad?
The idea sounds interesting but maybe a bit unrealistic to me. I think it could work verter if he saw himself as weak but didn't think he cannot lift weight but convince himself that everybody else can do it, and maybe better than him.
"See? I am weak, I lifted the rock but now I feel tired and I am sweating, any of you could make it better."
Something like not putting a lot of value to what he does more than having real decisions. He might have low self steem or just someone has told him so many times that he is weak that he now believes it.
Don't repeat it too much and if you see your table mates feel unconfortable about it you can make your character overcome that issue so it's easy to fix.
I say, if you like it, go on with it.
The idea sounds nice but maybe a bit unrealistic to me. I think it could work verter if he saw himself as weak but didn't think he cannot lift weight but convince himself that everybody else can do it, and maybe better than him.
"See? I am weak, I lifted the rock but now I feel tired and I am sweating, any of you could make it better."
Something like not putting a lot of value to what he does more than having real decisions. He might have low self steem or just someone has told him so many times that he is weak that he now believes it.
Don't repeat it too much and if you see your table mates feel unconfortable about it you can make your character overcome that issue so it's easy to fix.
I say, if you like it, go on with it.
I'm not really going for realism (mechanically he's a psychic caster that makes himself strong if he thinks about it hard enough...) but I get what you're saying.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this conversation is pointless. It's too resistant to details—whenever someone cites one, the other side can say, "That's not the sort of snowflake I'm talking about," and deflect the topic.
But my point is, if tieflings are an outcast people, and a player plays a tiefling, then the player's character should...And right there is the core of the objection. That last word. It dictates how someone else should play the game. Not: "I play a tiefling and I make a big deal out of the difference of my character." But: "Other people should behave in the way I want them to based on my character choice and if they're not doing that, I call that wrong."
Maybe some of us don't want to sit around leveraging negativity for story material. Perhaps it is conceivable that stories can be created out of positivity and that characterization can come out of something more than excoriating difference. In theory a GM might want to emphasize other aspects of a character or NPC in their story.
And if that's the case, there's only one viable solution...
You forgot that I put a condition on it.
I said (in overly generic terms) "If A, Then B."
So complaining that B is bad because A isn't always true is an invalid arguement in this case because I clearly stated "If A."
If you don't use A, then my statement doesn't apply to you.
Bringing this back to real terms, a major aspect of a character is significantly defined by negative traits, those negative traits should be a part of play.
If you don't want those negative traits to be a part of play, then don't define characters with negative traits.
That last sentence seems obvious, but all too often groups stick with things have major negative aspects, then just ignoring them rather than redefining them or calling them out as non-existant in their game.
I shouldn't have to play a game before finding out that major parts of my character will be ignored.
|
Not sure if this was the case in any of your games, but I see a lot of people simply chosing race for the boni it provides, not because they actually want to roleplay a person of this race. So if you joined my game and announced you would want to play a tiefling character, I'd probably think that it's for the +2 to dex and +2 Int rather than for the negative aspects of that race to be played out in game.
Now if you told me that you want to have that to be played out, I'd try to bring that into the game (as I try to do with any other PCs background). But I need to know it and simply that you chose tiefling as the race of your character is not enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the negative traits of your character is what you want to spend the available play time dealing with, rather than, I dunno, the stuff everyone else came to play, then you are the one who should rethink your policy. As a GM, it is often the case that one of your players wants to delve into disruptive territory with a character that can not and will not fit into the setting. You can tell them, but it doesn't much change things:
"I wanna play an undead minotaur paladin with an animal companion and an armour forged by the gods."
"No, seriously, are you nuts?"
"Okay, then I want to play an undead minotaur paladin with an animal companion and a high tech power armor."
"No. A thousand times no."
"Why aren't you letting me play ANYTHING FUN? Players should get to play anything they like, it's the GM's job to fit it into the campaign."
"Uhmmm, we're playing Call of Cthulhu, in London, in the 1880s?"
"Then I could have come through a magic portal! See how little you need to change to let me play my character! My last GM made the campaign fit my character! You're a horrible GM!"
Et cetera...
This is what makes GMs say "core only" before the players start making their characters. At least it is for me. It is quite possible that the rest of the options would be huge amounts of fun... but not worth the hassle.
That is, of course, not popular, along the lines of "I would never play with a GM who plays core only." etc. It is a poor situation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a huge difference between wanting to play an unusual race that exists in the setting and have the NPCs react in a manner consistent to how that race is viewed in setting and wanting to play something from a different setting entirely just to be a special snowflake.
And even banning non-core races doesn't solve this dilemma entirely as half-orcs for example are often discriminated against according to the setting.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As you've currently put it, if tieflings are an outcast people, then anyone who plays a tiefling has to deal with those negatives, even if neither they nor the GM and other players want to.
You're basing the condition strictly on setting grounds, ignoring the actual people playing the game. In fact, making them play in a specific way.
on the other hand, if the setting defines tieflings as an outcast people. Shouldn't tieflings not get treated as such? And players expect their tiefling character to get treated this way accordingly?
Because saying that you want to play a tiefling in such a setting but without all the negative aspects that come with it, smells awfully snowflaky. If I don't like how Shoanti get depicted in Golarion, the solution is not to redefine the Shoanti people (especially if everyone else likes them as they are). The solution is to play something else I actually like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a huge difference between wanting to play an unusual race that exists in the setting and have the NPCs react in a manner consistent to how that race is viewed in setting and wanting to play something from a different setting entirely just to be a special snowflake.
So long as the GM decides what races exist in a setting, including such things as saying "no catfolk in this Golarion campaign", I am with you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, this conversation is pointless. It's too resistant to details—whenever someone cites one, the other side can say, "That's not the sort of snowflake I'm talking about," and deflect the topic.
Which is where about 90% of all discussions on really any topic falters.
|
As you've currently put it, if tieflings are an outcast people, then anyone who plays a tiefling has to deal with those negatives, even if neither they nor the GM and other players want to.
You're basing the condition strictly on setting grounds, ignoring the actual people playing the game. In fact, making them play in a specific way.
on the other hand, if the setting defines tieflings as an outcast people. Shouldn't tieflings not get treated as such? And players expect their tiefling character to get treated this way accordingly?
Because saying that you want to play a tiefling in such a setting but without all the negative aspects that come with it, smells awfully snowflaky. If I don't like how Shoanti get depicted in Golarion, the solution is not to redefine the Shoanti people (especially if everyone else likes them as they are). The solution is to play something else I actually like.
Like everything else, this should be discussed during character creation, so that everyone knows what to expect.
But sometimes, as a GM, you don't really understand what gameflow is going to look like during character creation. And as a GM, I may very well decide that today the shopkeeper doesn't feel like hassling the tiefling, just because I don't want to spend any more game time in town, because the gal playing the barbarian hasn't gotten to kill anything yet this session.
In the great balancing act that is running a game, I am most likely in the moment to elide over complications that inconvenience the entire party, due to the choices of a single character.
But don't worry...there will be plenty of time to be an outcast later. When it is more interesting.