Why do people think good characters going through various setbacks and some kind of crisis of faith is integral to making a story interesting but let evil characters stay the same?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Ask Ganker.
>but let evil characters stay the same
They dont always
Zuko as well went through development. As long as a character isn't pure evil theres a chance for it
>hotter than snow white
>more interesting than the main character
Truth be told I only watched like 3(?) season with my ex but this b***h deserved her own show
It's usually because they're second-rate antagonists. Mainline villains change a lot, and a proper evil-main-character will change even moreso.
I really liked Gold(Rumplestilskin) too, the whole thing was surprisingly good imo.
Who are you even quoting?
Demian: The Story of Emil Sinclairs Youth by Hermann Hesse
also dont forget the homebrew anon
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15nMYLz0sB5xWUiSOG4oN6IsteRJjpdZk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lMKi80z5J51AduFwCwjIR7tt0krHDMcb/view
>powered by the apocalypse
What's wrong with PBtA? I've seen people shit on it in many /tg/ threads but never in great detail.
it's pretty rules-lite and there's usually a stigma about those in this forum, but more importantly, PbtA is basically only second to 5e for the "I want to make an RPG conversion of this media property, but I don't want to put any effort into doing so" market of cashgrabs
Characters going through various setbacks and some kind of crisis of faith is a way of creating conflict is essential to making a story interesting. Conflict can be external (between the character and other forces, such as the villain, nature, society, etc.) or internal (within the character’s own mind, emotions, values, etc.). Conflict creates tension, suspense, and drama, which keep the reader engaged and curious about the outcome. Conflict also allows the character to grow, change, and learn from their experiences, which makes them more relatable and realistic. A good character who faces no challenges or doubts would be boring and unrealistic.
Characters going through various setbacks and some kind of crisis of faith is a way of exploring themes, which are the underlying messages or ideas that the story conveys. Themes can be moral, philosophical, social, political, psychological, etc. They can reflect the author’s worldview, opinions, values, or questions. A character who struggles with their beliefs, values, or identity can illustrate a theme that the author wants to communicate or explore. For example, a theme of redemption can be shown by a good character who commits a terrible mistake and tries to make amends. A theme of courage can be shown by a good character who faces their fears and overcomes them.
On the other hand, it is a way of creating contrast, which is a literary device that highlights the differences between two or more elements in a story. Contrast can be used to emphasize or compare the qualities, actions, or outcomes of different characters, settings, events, etc. Contrast can also create irony, which is a situation where the opposite of what is expected happens or is revealed. A good character who suffers or fails can create contrast with an evil character who succeeds or prospers. This can create irony and challenge the reader’s expectations or assumptions.
What is Fitzgerald's (Tom Hardy) crisis of faith/character conflict in The Revenant?
My Pa being one… wasn’t a religious man you, you know? If you couldn’t grow it, or kill it or eat it, then he just plain all didn’t believe in it and that was it. And this one time he hit on up the old Saber Hills. San Saber Hills… He joined up with a couple of Texan ranger buddies of his to hunt, you know. Pretty routine, you know, they done it like hundred times before. Should have been three days of kill, but on the second day, well it all went fricked. Somehow that night he got to lose his buddies… And on top of it all, the Comanches, they went and took the horses, so… He was starving, delirious… And crawls up into this motte, like the group of trees out there in the middle of nowhere… just sticking up in this ocean of scrub… And he found religion. At that moment, he told me he found God. It turns out...that God: He is a Squirrel. Yeah. Big ol meaty one... I found God, he use to say. While I was sitting and basking in glory and subliminal mercy... I shot and eat that sunna b***h.
In the original version of Glass' tale, Fitzgerald's main source of villainy is abandoning Glass to save his own ass, and ultimately Glass has to spare his life because by the time Glass finally tracks him down, he had enlisted in the U.S. Army, and killing a U.S. soldier would have made Glass into an enemy of the United States.
Also, Glass is given a half-Pawnee son, and a Pawnee wife. That son, and rumors that Glass killed a U.S. Army officer to avenge that wife, make his trapper companions suspicious but endearing him to modern audiences. Though the real Glass lived among different Native American tribes, he had no known Native wife nor children, and suspicions about his pre-trapper days would have owed more to him serving under the pirate Jean Lafitte for two years.
>AI post
There are many examples of evil characters who change or develop throughout a story. For instance, in The Lord of the Rings, Gollum goes from being a loyal companion to Frodo to betraying him to the giant spider Shelob. In Macbeth, Macbeth goes from being a loyal general to King Duncan to murdering him and becoming a tyrant. In Breaking Bad, Walter White goes from being a mild-mannered chemistry teacher to a ruthless drug lord.
However, there may be some reasons why evil characters tend to stay the same more often than good characters. One reason could be that evil characters are often used as antagonists, which are the opposing forces that create conflict for the protagonists (the main characters). Antagonists are usually designed to challenge, threaten, or hinder the protagonists’ goals and motivations. Therefore, they may not need to change or develop as much as the protagonists do. Their role is to provide obstacles and complications for the protagonists to overcome.
Another reason is that evil characters are often used as symbols, which are objects, characters, or events that represent something else in a story. Symbols can have deeper meanings or associations that relate to the themes or messages of the story. Evil characters can symbolize different aspects of human nature, society, morality, etc. Therefore, they may not need to change or develop as much as other characters do. Their role is to convey or illustrate a concept or idea.
The crisis of faith in of itself is not interesting, it's what causes it. A noble or charismatic antagonist that it hurts to see vanquished, or a brain-bending moral conundrum, those are what add to the story, not torturous inner turmoil for the sake of pretending your character has grown.
Because they're dumb homosexuals.
I play a righteous character and she has struggles, but people often go "omg she's just a mary sue, no development no struggles!"
It's because they're uninformed queers who think characters need to get cut in half and spend fifteen years depressed (like they have been) in order to advance. It's projection that successful characters *must* have at least gone through their mundane lack of self-improvement.
Just do what you want. Aragorn didn't have a huge crisis and is basically the archetypical hero today.
Good characters are best when they are pious and martyred.
Wrong.
No, actually - Right!
Success without fails is suspicious and looks undeserved.
The most typical example is a rich/noble scion who has it all and is naturally projected to win because his game is inherently rigged.
His "struggles" are different compared to normal man. Where some struggle to just have, he's upset to have not fast or easy enough.
This type of character IRL is the most likely one to boast that he earned everything himself, unaware or ignorant of odds in his favour from the very beginning.
Pain and suffering gets you to sympathise and relate to character, while mary sue evoke jealousy and competitive streaks, especially those who constantly win.
Such character is liable to be occused of not knowing "true" struggle, because he usually never experienced life outside of his support zone, by himself.
Oh, and Aragorn's life is generally just unknown. He had good upbringing in Rivendell and then spend most of his life in some forests with no detail.
But Aragorn isn't arrogant or prideful, and that sells him. Especially since the book literally narrates his effort and ultimately, he's NOT the main character and would have died if Frodo failed.
>communist drivel
Shut up, poorgay.
>communist
Meds.
>I play a righteous character and she has struggles, but people often go "omg she's just a mary sue, no development no struggles!"
So clearly you dont. Or youre a moron who is bad at actually portraying struggle.
It's hard to be good, being evil is easy.
Wrong. Being good is easy. Unless you're inherently evil like 95% of all actual real life humans.
Frick all you scum.
>being good is easy
if 95% of humans are evil, and humans are social creatures genetically predisposed to wanting to fit in, then how do the 95% evil people stay evil? because its easier to be.
If 95% of people are evil then they're going against their nature by being good, which is more difficult than not. Therefore, for 95% of people being good is hard. Checkmate atheist.
people can't cope with the fact that some are infallible in their convictions and have to make them flawed like themselves
idk anon why cant kromer have her stay at home twink house husband
also evil characters may choose to stay the same even with the crisis of faith because they already had one that made them evil
Once upon a time, evil characters represented forces of nature, challenges to be overcome, ideologies to ponder; they weren't people as much as they were concepts. Earning power to overcome the challenge, doubting the validity of one's own motivations, preserving against seemingly impossible odds; all of these things make a character with earnest intentions someone to root for. It was satisfying to see a struggle, and see them earn what they were fighting for, as it brings catharsis and hope to those with empathy. Of course, this was all executed much more poetically than my pragmatic nature can express, but now it seems to have fallen out of fashion.
Most people want gray heroes doing questionable things and gray villains who have an understandable motivation but flawed in their methods to that end. People want heroes who look like themselves who don't have to earn power and don't have to face consequences for their actions, even if they tread into villainous territory. Responsibility, and respect for authority and the past are dirty words, accountability is a sin. Most people only care if the villain is a strawman of a political figure they personally don't like, and clap and squeal when they get taken down, in apathetic, self-satisfactory catharsis.
In either case, villains aren't seen as characters who need to change, because a one-and-done strawman doesn't need development, when trying to make the audience excited for the next thing to come out.
>nd see them earn what they were fighting for
Which is done by having them experience setbacks and challenges. A hero who just has everything handed to him didnt earn shit, thats like the whole point of jason and the argonauts.
Goodness is presumed, unless displayed aggressively it's not noticed in general. Evil is an exceptional quality, carrying all the baggage that entails.
Why do you think a general thread about classical writing and storytelling would be best at home on a board about games where there is no one dimensional storytelling?
Utter to me what you think the ideal solution is.
Iunno
Why do people ask about stories they've failed to write on the traditional games board?
>realize that the characters that I like the most all had crisis of faith, survivor's guilt and major setbacks
am I an npc?
>I like characters that develop
PHWOOOOOAR, I'M SOOOOOO WEIRD
>Why do people think good characters going through various setbacks and some kind of crisis of faith is integral to making a story interesting
Because it is.
>let evil characters stay the same?
Evil characters are generally not protagonists.
Why do people come to the traditional games board to get advice to write their trash genre fiction novel they'll never finish? I don't get it.
Because evil is the easy way out. Thats why good characters are stronger on principle
But the most beloved Jojo villain, Yoshikage Kira, literally experiences all of this and grows as a person, and it makes him terrifying