What makes a main character well written?

[Icelerate]

Recently I've become interested in character development and have pondered why people, including myself, prefer certain characters over others. I've come across discussions on how well written or poorly written certain lords are. In the context of a Fire Emblem plot, what makes lords well developed and compelling characters? For example, one can say they should be bestowed with as many likeable heroic qualities as possible but then some might say that makes them too perfect but if you try to add in flaws, some may claim this character sucks, why is he/she so stupid/cruel? 

Of course, there has to be a balance in how a lord is written. Don't want them to be too generic/boring but at the same time don't make them annoy you. 

Where do you draw the line?

[eclipse]

 Am I looking at a person, or a plot device?  Is this believable, given the world's mechanics?

Ike works, because he's a mercenary, and acts like one.  He'll help others when he can, but he's reasonable about it.  He'll attempt to correct his mistakes, which is a neat quality.

Contrast this to Corrin, who doesn't have the opportunity to reflect on his/her mistakes, and doesn't really have a motivation to change, because the world will change for him/her.  That's bad writing.

[B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N]

Everyone has motivations and reasons for doing stuff; giving your characters motivations for going out on a quest that's not just "alright guys, it's time to save the world" is pretty important if you want to make your characters feel relatable and believable.  Lords who simply do good deeds and beat up bad guys out of the goodness of their hearts get kind of boring after a while.

It's not just a matter of personality: your character can have an incredibly nuanced personality, but if there is no plot for said personality to bounce off of and mesh with, well, then, you wasted your time.  Good characters and a good plot go hand in hand.  If one element is lacking, people will be distracted by that, even if the other is pretty well-done.

A nice element of characterization I found in Fire Emblem 7 was the fact that, occasionally, your units would approach you and discuss stuff about the upcoming battle.  It was both relevant to the plot, and gave the characters a bit of personality.  It's a small thing, but small things can have big effects.

[Johann]

Not a hard rule per se, but generally the most popular characters are the ones that people would genuinely enjoy spending time with were they real, identify with, or want to be like. After all, your audience is going to be spending a lot of time with these characters.

Making a good villain is important for your story's central conflict to work, and gives your main character more to work with (actions & reactions between characters). Bear in mind that realistic villains aren't evil for evil's sake, and if their motivation isn't something totally selfish (ie: greedy person exploiting others), they often see themselves and whatever they're doing as right (ie: restoring order through violence).

[NekoKnight]

On 11/8/2017 at 9:52 AM, eclipse said:

Contrast this to Corrin, who doesn't have the opportunity to reflect on his/her mistakes, and doesn't really have a motivation to change, because the world will change for him/her.  That's bad writing

Even worse, in Revelation, his siblings literally tell him his flaws are endearing and that he should never change.

----

As for what I think a well written character entails, in may be some or all of these qualities:

-Character growth: It's possible to be a developed character and not change, but they're usually more compelling when they do. For a non-FE example, look at Jaime Lannister and Theon Greyjoy of GoT fame.

-Flawed, but not to the point of being unlikable: Flaws create conflict for characters and can inspire growth. Micaiah is the good kind of flawed (her dedication to her country leads her to do some morally dubious things, but she was always well meaning). Corrin is the bad kind of flawed (his spinelessness and undeserved self-righteousness made him insufferable).

-Relatable personalities/actions: This will vary depending on who you ask but characters need to be respond to things and be motivated in a way that feels real. Take Ike in Path of Radiance, for example, I'm sure many could relate to the anger he expresses when Sanaki is messing with Elincia, or his drive to defeat the Black Knight. Xander, on the other hand, acts in extreme ways that are engineered purely to create conflict rather than be a logical response to a situation (if you choose Birthright, despite loving and trusting Corrin, Xander goes berserk and assumes Corrin is a filthy traitor that hates his family).

[redtutel]

15 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

Even worse, in Revelation, his siblings literally tell him his flaws are endearing and that he should never change.

I'd argue that the intention with that scene is that Corrin's greatest strength and greatest weakness are one in the same: They have absolute faith in humanity. Ryoma and Xander may want Corrin to be more cautious, but they understand that this faith has allow them to do things they never could: Assembling an army of both Hoshidans and Nohrians. 

Although it's subjective how well this idea was executed.

[NekoKnight]

1 hour ago, redtutel said:

I'd argue that the intention with that scene is that Corrin's greatest strength and greatest weakness are one in the same: They have absolute faith in humanity. Ryoma and Xander may want Corrin to be more cautious, but they understand that this faith has allow them to do things they never could: Assembling an army of both Hoshidans and Nohrians. 

Although it's subjective how well this idea was executed.

The post chapter 16 script communicates what you're saying. Essentially its "Your faith in people helped make this army possible, but you really should be more careful."

The post chapter 17 script, however, takes it to a new level.

Spoiler

Avatar: I'm sorry, everyone. I was too trusting and early got you all hurt, or worse.

Ryoma: There is no need to apologize.

Avatar: What do you mean?

Ryoma: Anthony tricked you the only way he could be sure would work. That's all. Don't you agree, Prince Xander?

Xander: Hmmm. Avatar, I told you before. Your tendency to trust people is your greatest weakness. But if you stop doing that, you wouldn't be you. And then...I wouldn't be able to follow your lead anymore.

Ryoma: So basically, you need to keep on believing in people. Anything bad that comes from it...you can count on us to handle.

Here they insist that if Corrin tried to fix his flaw, it would be a net loss because they like him as an all-trusting messiah figure. They say they'll bail him out no matter how badly he messes up, denying him any character growth.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

So... I'm just gonna say to go check out Overly Sarcastic Productions on Youtube and their trope talks because she explains it far better than I do and in more detail. But!

Character growth: Your character can be the worst person imaginable at the beginning but as long as there's reasonable growth, a subverting of expectations that causes a change, then you can make them a very dynamic and interesting character. Now this isn't always true as you have examples like the Paragons but they usually act as catalysts to the other characters more than they do much development themselves, although they can still be perfectly interesting leads.

Honestly good writing, no matter the character and whether you want them to be "good" or not is essential. They need to stay in character and if they change there needs to be a logical and believable (for that universe) reason why. If you have a generally optimistic character throughout the story and then suddenly in a different scene they're depressed or negative there needs to be a logical and stated reason why. It can be powerful to subver this and give them a moment of a break down but it needs to be written well.

Lets take Velvet Crowe for an example. She's not from FE but she's a great example of a protagonist that isn't your standard goodie lord. She's angry, vengeful, she kills innocent people and destroys towns, but everyone still likes her because she's written so well! The question is how is she written well? She's believable for one. The situations she's been put through, her perception of the world, it's all explored in a lot of detail and it makes sense. Her motivations make sense. It also helps that she's surrounded by such a strong and likable cast that help showcase her flaws and virtues in different ways when placed next to her. A good character needs good characters around them.

The same thing works with a classically good character too. They can be kind, virtuous, all for the good of others, and so long as there's a logical and believable reason why and those motivations are explored in depth (and work with the plot) then you have a good character.

[Ae†her]

Just like any other well written character the main character should be someone that grows as a person throughout the story (not just in the amount of power he has), and/or the main character has already grown a lot due to past complexities that what he does in the story is reminiscent of that (this aspect also goes hand-in-hand with characters not being one/two dimensional).

[eclipse]

7 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Lets take Velvet Crowe for an example. She's not from FE but she's a great example of a protagonist that isn't your standard goodie lord. She's angry, vengeful, she kills innocent people and destroys towns, but everyone still likes her because she's written so well! The question is how is she written well? She's believable for one. The situations she's been put through, her perception of the world, it's all explored in a lot of detail and it makes sense. Her motivations make sense. It also helps that she's surrounded by such a strong and likable cast that help showcase her flaws and virtues in different ways when placed next to her. A good character needs good characters around them.

Meet someone who doesn't live Velvet.  No matter how well-done a character is, if the premise is absolutely ridiculous, I can't take the character seriously.  Which is what Velvet is, sadly.

Spoiler

When the plot is "the world is out to make you miserable", it's stupid.  Velvet's premise works for a character, but not a main character.

FE4 sort-of does this, too.  It's nowhere near as bad, but it's something that irritates me.

[Icelerate]

Here is a thread where some important criteria are given. In summary, the character should have a solid worldview which has plot relevance. Secondly, the character should have that worldview tested and depending on the character, they can either change their worldview or reaffirm it depending on what makes sense in the context of their worldview and role in the story. 

[OakTree]

It all really depends on the role of the main character since there, but it's generally agreed that a main character in a story-driven game like Fire Emblem has to be at least:

• Fleshed out, we must understand the Lord as a person, we must be able to understand their emotions, their motivations and perhaps even unimportant aspects of their characters in order to make them feel real and human, it doesn't matter if the main character is a heroic goody-two-shoes or a morally grey anti-hero, they should still always feel like a human being.
• Dynamic, the main character should not remain static throught the entire story, he needs to face conflicts which force him to change the way he thinks and/or approaches different sittuations, basically, he needs to receive character development because having him be basically flawless from the beginning doesn't create for the most nuanced or interesting conflict.

However, i will say one thing: A main character doesn't need to be both of those to be well written, while yes, a character who is both fleshed out and dynamic is great, it's not outright necessary, a main character might only need to be one of these to be well written, and this doesn't apply only to main characters, but to most character writing as well.

If i had to create a chart or graph where the X line goes from Flat/Fleshed Out and the Y line goes from Static/Dynamic, i wouldn't necessarily put every character i'd consider good in the upper right corner, some characters only need to be one of these types, if not neither, i mean, i don't think a comic relief character needs to be either, and there is also the case of so called Force of Nature Villains and Plot Device Characters, both of which can be static and flat while still being as well-written as these types of character can be.

Really, it's all about understanding a character's role and the type of story you're writing, i don't mind a main character like Sol Badguy being flat and static because he's part of a crazy fighting game franchise with a hard rock and heavy metal aesthetic, not a modern epic comparable to ancient mythology. Meanwhile, someone like Corrin fails in their role as a main character because Fire Emblem Fates is supposed to be a story with a nuanced main conflict, yet our main character is someone we barely know anything about outside of their basic backstory, but we also don't see them change or reflect on their character flaws, and the fact that they're a player avatar means they have to be as average and easy to self-insert in as possible, meaning they can't be interesting in a different way, as the main character in a story-driven game, they absolutely fail.

Edited November 25, 2017 by OakTree