Hmm ... it's some of those and some of those for me. Generally I do write my characters based on what I think real people can do, but sometimes I do get them into a situation when, faced with a choice, a relatable character could choose anything and what the character chooses is what I think I'd want a potential role model to choose.
That said, it in no way makes them perfect. For example, one of the choices a certain character makes at one point is meant to show that, if it is at all possible, we should try and we should persevere; he fails to get to the end with it, but as far as he did get I think the point is made. After that, he gets another choice, and the one he chooses is meant to show that it is possible to atone for past mistakes; and yes, those mistakes were, or at least many of them were, his own mistakes that he could have avoided. In that regard, in the fact that he chose those things rather than choosing whatever was the easiest, I do think he counts as a potential role model, even though he is far from being perfect.
Another character of mine, to give more than one example, I often enough use to answer the question "what exactly does it mean to live 'honourably'?" and that too I think works better because he is not perfect nor even close to it.
Because, in the end, I think what makes for a role model is not being perfect but rather being flawed and still making a choice, despite those flaws, that you'd think people with those flaws wouldn't make. Because the point that bravery is a great thing is lost with a perfect character but played (potentially) well when the character feels fear and often cowers in a corner and yet stands tall and strong when people need them because people need them. Because the point that it is possible to make up for one's mistakes is lost when the character's worst mistake is not saving the world quickly enough but works when the character stumbled from a high to a low and then back and forth because of their own imperfections and there are so many mistakes that they just want to keel over and not stand up but instead they move forward and try again.
Yeah, I too believe that a character can be a role model and relatable at the same time. And a role model doesn't have to be perfect all the time either.
I like to give my characters some ideal "high virtues", yet make them flawed otherwise, so both?
"The dried flowers are so beautiful, and it applies to all things living and dead."People. I really don't care if they're relatable or role models. As long as they seem real with all the gradients we all have, I'm fine.
I know the truth—darkness beats light. Visit my DA: I'll share my secrets stories with you.Sounds like the main difference between the DC and Marvel superheroes.
Heaven is a tropical rainforest.People. Even my most moral characters have visible issues, such as my goody two-shoes bounty hunter being prone to explosive fits of rage due to a repressive childhood.
It's hard for me to write a real moral paragon because I don't know what that would even look like; the way I see it, a person can be intensely moral and good and still have views I don't care for or which have very different ideological foundations. But if I am writing a very good and moral person, they are going to reflect at least some of my views: Kindness and emotional honesty are very important to me, and while not essential to being good and far from the sole province of "good people," I think that if I were to write a true bastion of ideal goodness in my work, they would certainly possess those qualities.
However, regardless of whether or not a character might or might not live by my curious ideas of what is right and good and just, they're still real people insofar as the story is concerned, so I feel like the line between the two categories is finer than it may seem. But if we are keeping these distinctions in place, I just don't write a lot of saints. I mean, there are genuinely nice people, and people who live by strong moral codes and try to be good, but most people do screw up even when they are trying the best that they can to not be bad or hurt people. My work is full of screw-ups at all ends of the greater moral spectrum, good people doing hurtful and stupid things for mostly good reasons; and conversely, quite a few people ranging from the questionable to the abominable who live by very strong moral rules indeed.
So there you have it! I guess.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.Usually, I suggest a character who leans towards "relatable" but transitions into a "role model". Mind you, role models can be relatable for sure, and not every hero needs to be relatable.
"Any campaign world where an orc samurai can leap off a landcruiser to fight a herd of Bulbasaurs will always have my vote of confidence"I usually go for "relatable" with a few "role-model" elements.
edited 1st Oct '16 9:53:32 PM by Novis
You say I am loved, when I don’t feel a thing. You say I am strong, when I think I am weak. You say I am held, when I am falling short.My favorite "type" of character is the down-on-his-luck, kinda scruffy, somewhat unscrupulous guy that has a heart of gold underneath it all. For example, the stereotypical Chandleresque detective. I don't mind unambiguously heroic protagonists, like Superman and Captain America, but I like it when a character manages to be a good person despite their flaws and vices.
Is that a Wocket in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?I don't aim to write a role-model or "goody-goody" character, I try to write a person who is well rounded and seems believable.
Ya, I'm weird like that...Bad guys, somewhere between the spectrum of Mr. Blond from Reservoir Dogs and Kitsurigu from Fate/Zero...
Just enough of a redeemable personality to make the reader like them, but enough moral reprehensibility to make them feel uncomfortable for doing so.
I had a brilliant idea once.i don't like role models simply for the reason that they might potentially end up like flawless mary sues. i'd rather write flawed but well rounded individuals who are just like you and me instead of doing a role model. role models are fine of course but some of them can seem...unrealateable.
MIA...Kiritsugu was right like the 90% of time, he was the only one to actually try to the right thing, i mean, with the power of something as the Grail (at least in the way who Kiritsugu and all the masters know it) don`t try to use it to build an utopia is a massive act of dickery.
He killed his enemies, but that is normal, every one was trying to do it, it was a fight for survival.
The only time when i feel unconfortable for rooting to him was when he killed Kaineth and his wife, that was unnecessary, why?
..but that wasn`t pragmatic in any way.
Any way, i still wish who he had winned
edited 22nd Oct '16 5:13:01 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my countryI've always found writing flawed characters to be more relatable, since I have many flaws I see in myself. I try to project the image that I'm a good and upright person but my flaws can always manifest in ugly or unexpected ways. I think that's why I like to write them more, because writing a purely good character seems somehow unattainable to me without rendering them a flat static work.
'If you fall seven times, stand up eight.' The cry of the Undead.Hmm. Honestly, it is hard for me to pick one since I see problems in both. With a role model character, they can come across as either oblivious, or not being able to really understand people due to their ivory tower view of things. With a relatable character, umymain problem is that one must be exposed to other typed of people and experiences that are unfamiliar.
With my own character in my serial, I am crafting him to be a character that can inspire others, and because of his past, he is able to connect with people where others cannot.
Don't catch you slippin' now.Someone who tried to be kind/decent, but decided everyone else ought to go fuck themselves after (or before) getting trampled on by self-serving ingrates.
Those who have no right to wish are quick to cause destruction.I mostly write role model characters, and have a few anti-Mary Sue techniques in my arsenal:
- Have the admired qualities clash with each other. For example, one of my role model characters is very comfortable with talking amiably to just about anyone (me, not so much), but he's also a Camp Straight Cloudcuckoolander with a love of the paranormal (qualities that I would admire by themselves), so this spills over into him being a Casanova Wannabe around the ladies and a Talkative Loon to everyone else.
- Put them in close contact with another character who acts as a foil for them. I do this a lot to my anti-heroes, where the foil character will point out the "bad" things they do and shame them for it. Often times the foil isn't just one character - it may even be the majority of the other characters.
- Make them a villain. Kind of a subset of the above, in that the hero(es) will have a specific reason to oppose them, and they are even more likely to be doing something morally wrong. I have one role model character who is a Torture Technician who films her acts and posts them on her website, so... yeah, that's villain material right there.
- Really get inside their head - better yet, give them some internal conflicts. I am very fond of the Dark Is Not Evil trope, and if a character of mine believes that, they will existentially monologue about it at various points throughout the story. Right now I'm writing a character who combines this with Bad Powers, Good People, often wondering about the morality behind said powers.
edited 23rd Dec '16 12:45:32 AM by ladytanuki
Come, my child of the devil. Your mother is calling you. Hear my call in Hell's grand hall, where all our dreams come true.I have to ask, why not both? The way I go about it, a realistic and relatable role model is merely someone with a set of benign yet low-key goals, as opposed to messianic ambitions, who succeeds based on reason and skill as opposed to idealized strength or dramatic contrivance.
Far too often, fictional role models are merely sugarcoated busybodies who never Had to Be Sharp, while any action based on necessity is the province of dark anti-heroes at best. There's never a case where a characters are called out and actually suffer consequences for their supposedly idealistic self-restraint. The idea that morality and necessity don't mix is the "let them eat cake" of self-righteous delusion.
As for the danger of becoming Sue-ish, I consider this a flaw of the story, not the character. Consider any mystery novel - the less flaws the lead detective has, the less they can detract from the story, so you can focus on the mystery at hand. To contrast, any police procedural that focuses too much on the main cast's personal issues, slowly becomes a soapy mess until the final season where things are at best hastily wrapped up.
edited 23rd Dec '16 3:27:28 AM by indiana404
Being a relentlessly pacifistic person is arguably a hell of a lot harder than being "pragmatic," because it is at once your obligation to do no-one harm and to allow no-one to come to harm. Jains will wear veils before their mouths to keep from swallowing flies, yet throw themselves in front of bayonets for complete strangers, because these things are part and parcel. Idealism without sacrifice is wishful thinking at best.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.No doubt it's harder, but only as a self-imposed challenge. Kinda like how all organic vegetarianism or whatever food fad you prefer is a luxury primarily existing in countries economically built on meat and processed foods. Whenever actual necessity enters the equation, the niceties of a conscience-appeasing diet are among the first items on the check-off list. If anything, the more pragmatism is demonized, the greater likelihood there is for its accusers to pop a vein when they are put in a similar situation.
The problem with your reasoning is that privileged people with alternative options often do morally compromised things under the guise of being "pragmatic" and "doing the hard things that need to be done" when the fact of the matter is that theoption they're taking is just the easier, more expedient option, and quite often not even the smartest or most effective one.
For instance, torture produces "answers" faster than becoming friendly with a prisoner or tricking them into cooperating with you, but the answers it produces are generally a mixed bag (mostly of nonsense) spouted off to end the suffering. And yet people will justify torture with "ticking time bomb" scenarios that don't even make sense in any realistic situation. Torture is fundamentally a lazy answer to a difficult and complex question, devoid of the nuance needed to unpack it; and yet we create daring, dark anti-heroes who are supposedly making "hard choices" and then choose to take the least considered, least difficult way out of the situation. We confuse evil with difficulty. It's panic feigning pragmatism.
I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.
There are two types of moral characters.
I tend to write relate-able characters more, because you don't instantly start off as a role model.
edited 16th Sep '16 9:48:39 AM by DokemonStudios