In twenty years of playing both tabletop and computer game RPGs I've played as a wide variety of both human and non-human characters at this point. If someone I knew always played exactly the same type of character, whether it was very different to them or as close as possible, I'd be curious enough to ask why. Nothing wrong with using an idea of what 'your' fantastical adventurer(s) look like across multiple games, I think I've approximated the same characters in multiple games too just because if a game calls for me to name a generic warrior type, I've created several over the years that would slot in. Sometimes I even use the same character in different games to avoid creating a new one from scratch but change it up by saying 'this game happens in their early life, they are young, optimistic and naive' or 'this game is them after a severe knockback where lots of their previous allies were killed, they lack trust at this point'. It's not unusual for roleplayers to view 'their character's' loose overall development as more important than any individual campaign. I've had a knight appear in most of my dungeon crawler parties for many years, and for some reason I kinda see him as hailing from somewhere like the Mediterranean rather than a 'Western European' where I'm from. In most games he's the backbone of the party, solid and dependable, an experienced adventurer that takes time to warm up to young characters and weird, oddball classes. He's kinda like that roleplayer that plays a fighter out of the book and sees a kid turn up with a multiclass dragon-dancer-necromancer and just lifts one eyebrow. The fact that I set his skin colour as a different shade to mine is far less important than his demeanour, should there be options to make choices in the game, being familiar to me and increasing my enjoyment of it, especially as I've aged and maybe become a bit set in my ways too. I suppose that's a bit of a tangent compared to non-RPGs though.