So the other day the group was going over skill lists and coming up with who the best was to handle certain situations and speed up some things. Ok that was fine.
Then out of the blue one of my players made some strange comments about the group. Mostly on the forums we use. Things like. "The group are outcasts of society anyway..." so I started looking at all of the background notes I had trying to find out if the group were all tied to being outcasts.
Then again he mentions that the group are social outcasts based on their skill choices. So I asked him what he meant, I took the bait. All adventurers are social outcasts who do not fit into society because they have skills that set them apart from their home towns. So his way of thinking is if you know the skill religion you know so much it actually alienates you from the average person that they shun you. Same goes for History or Arcana. Any skill for that matter that you train in makes you so out of the ordinary that you can not be a regular part of society.
So my initial reaction was kind of "wow" where is this coming from? It then went into me kind of saying the majority of the characters in the group are not outcasts, that this is a archetype or background for a character. That just having the skills like Religion and History can elevate a person into an important role in their society. Another example I gave was a character who is a shifter who's entire clan was destroyed save him could be viewed as an outcast because he is from the outside and dies not fit into a human culture.
So then it gets a little... real. I get this post from him.
"Adventure - an undertaking usually involving danger and unknown risks
Most societies don't base themselves around adventure. In fact, most adventurers were based upon lower class citizens within society. You know, people who would rather make a name for themselves in the unknown than to live through the mundane drudgery of being part of society."
Would you ignore this players view of the game? I know I did not need the definition of adventure from him, but I had him admit he did not view skills as something that could be tied into a profession like "History - Scholar or Religion - Clergy"
I am trying very hard to grasp his way of thinking. He has kind of admitted to having a completely different take on what is happening in the campaign, which explains how he is viewing certain NPC's and story elements. It is like he is in a different campaign than the rest of the group sometimes. Do I pull him off to the side and ask him what is up? Do I ask the group if they are getting where the campaign is going? Because at this point in the conversation I am a bit confused as to where the disconnect is at.
Everyone is saying they are loving the campaign, there are no changes they would like to see happen yet I am getting this POV from this guy that is contrary to what I am doing.
Need some advice, thanks.