How To Avoid a "Annoyingly Flawless Character"

I've come to realize that one of the major characters in my work (who can be best described as a Ditzy Genius, Wide-Eyed Idealist who has a few elements of of The Ingenue) lacks any major 'flaws' (other than the fact she is the youngest and least experienced member in her team and suffers from some degree of Crippling Overspecialization) nearly all of the characters on the team are at least friendly towards her (except one character who is portrayed as 'kind of a dick,' but it's proven that some of the reasons why he doesn't like her do make sense to some degree)

Later in the series, she manages to suffer major blows to her idealistic naturebecomes much more confident and down to Earth.

But I'm worried about her initially coming off as kind of bland or, yes, I'm going to say it, a bit of a Mary Sue. I'm trying to think of actual flaws (besides the overused 'clumsiness' or 'socially awkwardness') to make her a more rounded character. Any tips?

I have a very similar character in my story. What I'm doing is making her a Cloud Cuckoo Lander, and showing that her naive, idealistic nature just has no place in the world they are in- she's only like that because her brother shelters her. It's not a Crapsack World, but it's still much more cynical than she thinks. Also, her idealistic nature makes her overly trusting and prone to danger. I'm also making her an Actual Pacifist which will cause problems when she starts to break.

@The Muse: It's difficult to say quite how she'll come across without more detailed information, but I'm not sure that any artificially-included flaws are called for: she seems to already have problems (being the least experienced, for example), and difficulties to face (those blows to her idealism, for example). Ultimately, I think that how she comes across is likely to be a matter of execution.

I really don't think that every significant character need have at least one major flaw.

edited 30th Jun '14 7:15:03 PM by ArsThaumaturgis

That's true. "Annoyingly Flawless" characters usually have no problems at all and that's not going to be true for your character.

I usually make sure they fail at something. Even minor things. Like gambling. Or math. Or social sensibilities.

One can be likeable, exceptionally good-natured and generally well-adjusted and still not be anywhere close to perfect, let alone annoyingly so. That is the way life works and, if you can make a character realistic enough in their behaviours, how fiction can work.

Don't make them universally successful or full of boundless sense and profound truths. A good person who is not stupid is not a person incapable of making mistakes; if anything, they can probably screw up harder than someone less well-intentioned or intelligent. They are also not automatically skilled or experienced in all things, or always going to be thought well of simply for being nice.

I think people are too focused on the importance of flaws. They're good, but not strictly necessary.

What's important is that your character faces challenges and has to fight to overcome them. Drama comes from seeing people struggle, and as long s the character is struggling we don't need to also know that she gets off on punching kittens.

Also, flaws are something that should stem from their core concept as a character, not something that should be tacked on to make them "not perfect". A highly idealistic character could also be naive. A man of action could be reckless. Take the things that define your character, look at how they can be taken too far, and make *that* their flaw.

A sort of unrelated comment (keeping in mind the Op's situation is entirely different), but I do remember my recurring tactic for characters was making them usually extremely skilled at their field of choice, but having personal problems that cripple them.

So they'd win every battle, but personally, they'd be as lost as ever in the world.

I agree with . "Flaws" are not something you pick from some kind of list to stick onto a character so that they could be more interesting. A well-rounded character with organically built and developed personality should face challenges and shortcomings that stem from their own established characterization.

Furthermore, what constitutes as a character "flaw" is usually context-sensitive. A particular character trait or a philosophy that your character subscribes to (in this case, naivety and idealism) can be her most strong asset in one situation, but these very same traits can work against her in another.

edited 2nd Jul '14 3:11:13 AM by Nightwire

You could pretty much argue that we don't actually have "strengths" and "flaws" a lot of the time, we just have "attributes" which can be strengths or flaws depending on the situation.

As others have noted, "virtues" can, in certain circumstances, be classed as flaws (Ocelot's alternative character generation system for Cyberpunk 2020 lists "Honor" and "Honest" as disadvantages) and equally "flaws" can be very advantageous under certain circumstances as well (many people would classify a large number of the "advantages" in Ocelot's list to be "flaws").

GB Shaw's comment on the "unreasonable man" also highlights that beautifully and my sister's much-commented-on "fault" (and freely-self-admitted attribute) of being stubborn is what's stopping her from taking up smoking again despite the horrific withdrawal pangs.

If I'm writing a story or running a roleplaying game, I'll happily turn people's so-called advantages against them and in one Vt M LARP I used my "Bestial" disadvantage to bolster my Intimidate check, much to the surprise of my opponent who'd "never seen a disadvantage used as an advantage before". The Storyteller upheld my use of it on the grounds that being an ugly fucker who, under normal circumstances, looks like he's about two-tenths of a second away from lunging at you and ripping out your jugular, does make it easier to intimidate someone.

Perhaps by viewing things less by commonly perceived categories and more on what they mean in the context of the situation, we can get past the whole "your character is a Mary Sue because (s)he hasn't got enough flaws" thing.

Give your character attributes, then see what the "real-life" consequences of those attributes would be under the situation they're in.

Muse, you seem to have a handle on it quite nicely, having her idealism blow up in her face on occasion and her overspecialisation causing problems as well, so I don't think you need to worry.

The reason people say "your character needs flaws" (and why the Informed Flaw is classed as useless) is because it's boring if the story progresses smoothly for the protagonist with no meaningful conflict or setbacks.

What they should be saying is "your story needs to show how this character must struggle with aspects of their nature" - be it alcoholism causing them to botch jobs or being too optimistic or too idealistic.

edited 2nd Jul '14 5:59:05 PM by Wolf1066

One of the genres that suffers the most from the Mary Sue / boring invincible hero is the superhero genre. Attempts have been made to get supers more realistic (see The Dark Knight Rises for example) but let's play with some ideas as a for-instance:

Drawbacks include:

• Voluntary Shapeshifting: Would your identity suffer? Would you lose all sense of self? (An Xmen comic book explored that with Mystique).

• Involuntary Shapeshifting: would someone go insane?

• Energy powers: Power Incontinence would be a big risk, if emotional states regulate the power, imagine what someone who can fire eye beams and has "anger issues" would do.

• A Healing Factor is only good if you can turn off the PAIN. It's a Good Thing You Can Heal if your ejected from a car after a 95kph crash, but oh Gods will it hurt as your body puts itself back together. In fact it's be theorised that it could hurt to grow as fast as characters in comics.

• See Who Wants to Live Forever?: this bites back hard if immorality isn't passed on. A hero has to bury love interests, children and grandchildren. Kinda hard to date when a lover finds out that "Grandma" is really the hero's daughter.

• Technopath sounds good until your trapped in some Third World hellhole with no electricty or some place after a massive EMP attack. Now whatca gonna do?

• A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Read: Yeah the hero/heroine can read minds, and now knows that every dirty, dark and terrible secret that neighbors, friends and family have been holding back. Not to mention having to read the minds of some Ax-Crazy Big Bad.

• A Healing Factor power means you have to eat enough to feed five people. Energy Powers mean that unless your body as a minimum level of "energy" you get sick or are sluggish.

• It's good to have Stock Superpowers but now the character has a true form would scare Sauron and Cthulhu. It's kinda hard to put people at ease if your superhero form is an Eldritch Abomination.

edited 15th Aug '14 7:43:43 PM by TairaMai

I agree with everyone else on the idea that flaws should come from the character's personality itself. That's what I try to do with my characters.

Kimberly, my own Wide-Eyed Idealist character I mentioned before, is, as I said, also a Cloud Cuckoo Lander because of it, and way too trusting.

Daedalus, my nicest character happens to be nice to the point of being the Extreme Doormat. He's a genius, but that just makes him a servant in his own home as he is forced to create weapons and cyborgs against his will for his father and the army.

Warren, My main character, the Rebel Leader, also has his ambitions to struggle with as well as The Chains of Commanding. Not only are these flaws on their own, but they create internal conflict as well- he loves being in charge, yet also fear he's not good at keeping his followers safe.

Amber, the character who lived the most normal life until the story begins, and thus seems to be the most well adjusted over all, is also going to struggle greatly in accepting the truth about her world and the new life she has to adopt.

Dakota, my Action Girl also happens to be a Blood Knight on the inside who is convinced that No Guy Wants an Amazon.

Lysander, her rival, the Jerk Jock and eldest son of the leader, the also happens to be extremely proud and can't handle losing due to athletics being all he's good at, besides cooking. His Jerkass nature comes from an Inferiority Superiority Complex.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is, it's one of the best ways to add flaws. They can be subtle, more realistic, and more hindering if they are natural results of the character's own personality, rather than just being tacked on for the sake of making them "rounded." That way, you can have a genuinely nice and liked character who remains flawed and realistic. On the flip side, good attributes that any antagonists have should come from the same source, their personality, which makes them brave or funny or kind to animals. In general, I guess that if a character's personality allows for these good and bad traits, those are the traits they should have; They shouldn't be there just to be there, they should be natural extensions of a character's personality.

edited 2nd Jul '14 11:53:28 PM by Sibuna

Basically, that.

Flaws should be logical for the character's personality. An intelligent person or a prodigy would SEEM flawless to some people, but they're often socially awkward and weird because they can't connect with "normal" people. Plus, school is hell when you're gifted and everything seems to move at a snail's space, so intelligent people actually tend to do BADLY in school because they're not motivated and everything seems too easy or boring to bother with.

I get frustrated easily when learning new things, and when I was little I used to just cry and give up because I was so unused to struggling. The crying has since been replaced with swearing, but the principle is the same—if I hit a moderate snag, I lose my patience/temper in a second.

edited 14th Aug '14 2:04:49 PM by Sharysa

Basically for my characters, I used Personality Powers, get the good and bad personalities that fit their Elemental Powers, and went from there. I also made sure that their flaws would be played up in the story, which leads to problems that they alone may not be able to solve.

AC (Lightning/Holy):

• Pros: Kind-hearted, cheerful, friendly, benevolent, willing to hear your opinions, encouraging.
• Flaws: Too trusting of others, way too idealistic, cannot accept harsh reality, rather low self-esteem, too "fast" for others.
• Problems generated: Kindness is taken advantage of, gets a Heroic BSoD when the true nature of himself as well as the Gifted are revealed, refuses to accept fate.

Calia (Ice/Earth):

• Pros: She's very intelligent, determined, realistic/sensible, and kind/benevolent.
• Flaws: Extremely stubborn when it comes to decisions. Very cold, distant, aloof and rather arrogant towards allies and friends, regularly abuses her authority.
• Problems generated: Her stubbornness gets her into trouble, her cold nature and arrogance creates many falling outs between allies.

Amber (Fire/Wind):

• Pros: Very passionate, encouraging, enthusiastic and carefree, extremely good fighter.
• Flaws: Extremely impulsive and impetuous, overconfident, very unpredictable and indecisive.
• Problems generated: Seen as a slightly crazy Blood Knight, gets stuck in many situations she blindly charges into, Indecisiveness leads to army squad disasters.

Melanie (Water/Darkness):

• Pros: Generally happy outer side, adaptable, laid-back, usually calm, intelligent.
• Cons: Mood-Swinger^note like how the sea turns from calm to storm, emotional, loner, very secretive/inner darkness with a malicious streak.
• Problems generated: Secretive actions cause major problems ^* ("Did you just eat half of my soul like that?"), lets negative emotions get the better of her, easily leading to BSODs, extreme emotions+hidden sadistic nature kills a lot of bad guys along with innocents at one point.

edited 14th Aug '14 9:26:41 PM by ironcommando