Meta(gaming) > Role(playing)
0.
Yes, I'm being flippant.
Were I making a serious point, we'd need definitions of both metagaming and roleplaying. Mine is a very minor point:
Playing a role is subordinated to the game's meta.
1.
The game meta is the reality of the social act of getting together to play a game. We're a group of real people, possibly friends, maybe strangers. We use characters to interact with the fiction.
If so inclined, we may embody these characters. This gives us freedom to exercise advanced Theory of Mind. "I know I would do this if I were in this situation. X and I are different; What would X do here?"
2.
Luke is not free.
Mind you: Luke was free to feel guilt, fear or self-doubt; we're shown that he did, to some extent.
But he was never free to hide away in Tatooine, because STAR WARS is about visiting (3) new planets; or to refuse to take part in the Battle of Yavin, because STAR WARS is also about space dogfithing.
He was never free to be dull, because STAR WARS is fun.
Luke had to serve the meta.
3.
You are not free.
At my table, players are not free to act (via their characters) in such a way as to upset the real people around them.
Minimum-requirement characters serve the social contract that is the most basic aspect of the game's meta. If this is a game, at the very least nobody should feel wronged.
Good1 characters are condusive to gameplay. They work well within the system's and group's expectations.
Not in terms of alignment or morality.↩