Rant: Anyone else find the idea that flawed heroes are innately interesting tiresome? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Rant: Anyone else find the idea that flawed heroes are innately interesting tiresome? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JulesCARV
09-30-06, 02:29 AM I'm not saying that being a hero with flaws is somehow a bad character concept. I think that heroes with flaws are fine. Rather, what I'm referring to is a set of assumptions that somehow adding a character flaw will turn a boring character into an interesting one. Basically, I think the assumptions are something like this:

1) Good guys who have flaws are inherently interesting.

2) A good guy without glaring flaws is boring.

Does anyone else find it tiresome and... kinda boring? Y'know, things like "my paladin is interesting, because he's a womanizer!"

I may just be a weirdo, but I don't find anything particularly interesting about a character who has a bad temper, or with a sometimes wild libido, or an alcohol habit. I mean, these could be hooks for interesting things, but innately, not so much.

Which is not to say that there's something wrong with flawed but heroic characters, again. What I object to is the idea that you can magically transmute a boring, bland hero into an interesting character by adding a mundane character flaw. I think what you end up with is a boring, bland hero with a mundane character flaw, which is not nearly the same as an actually interesting character.

Conversely, just as adding a flaw to a boring character does not make the character interesting, I don't think that an interesting character needs some significant character flaw to be interesting. Of course, heroic-but-flawed characters can be interesting, but they're not the only ones. Someone who is blindly conformist and totally predictable might be boring, but deviation from that isn't necessarily a character flaw, but could be an aspect of the character's goodness and heroism. Colonel Dax from Paths of Glory, for instance, isn't a blind conformist, and he can be interesting and unpredictable, turning down the promotion that General Broulard expects him to take, but that's an aspect of his heroism, not a character flaw.
ericSHINRA
09-30-06, 09:52 PM I agree that adding a tiny, perhaps insignifigant flaw in order to flesh out a character doesn't instantly make him original or interesting. It really depends on the flaw, however, and how the player uses it. For example, I'm going to be playing a Bard in my next campaign who has a burning lust for cancer(i.e. he smokes, a lot). Because the he's known much party for so long, one of the characters in particular is avid about him qutting or at least cutting back and while I suppose this is more of a habbit then a flaw it can make for interesting arguements and reactions.

I think if your flaw can bring out a reaction or make the story more interesting it's perfectly alright but you shouldn't include one just say, "Oh, no. He's not bland... he's got a smoking habbit!"
aleshandre
10-01-06, 11:31 AM I have to agree here. Having a character flaw does not an interesting character make. Take Iron Man for example; he's a raging alcoholic, but that's not what makes him interesting. What makes him interesting is that he struggles to overcome the alcohol and fights crime in an ultra-awesome suit of powered armor. Flaws don't make a person (or character) interesting, rather the actions taken to overcome them. On the other hand lacking character flaws does not make a character boring. The personality not the flaws or lack thereof make a character interesting.
Stormbrand
10-02-06, 01:41 AM I would say what makes my paladin interesting is not his weaknesses, so much as how his failings interact with his code.

Also, what is a flaw? Again, using the same paladin, he was extremely forgiving, so much that it confused people. He point-blank refused to develop a personal grudge or react to insults. This was very noble of him, it also kept everyone else really off-balance when they saw it in practice.

Playing a character with 23 CHA is difficult when you want the rest of the table to get that feeling. The phrase I used to explain how he does it to the other players worked well, "His leadership gives him around 580 followers. He knows each of them by name."

Just being so gracious and determined at the same time made him interesting. This was someone who very much lived in the present, he very rarely spoke of himself aside from his current task, otherwise he spoke either business or about the other person (tried to take an interest in everybody).

Of course, he was very sarcastic, and had a forceful personality (he never so much made requests as he did announce his intent) which could be considered a flaw by some people.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 09-30-06, 02:29 AM	I'm not saying that being a hero with flaws is somehow a bad character concept. I think that heroes with flaws are fine. Rather, what I'm referring to is a set of assumptions that somehow adding a character flaw will turn a boring character into an interesting one. Basically, I think the assumptions are something like this: 1) Good guys who have flaws are inherently interesting. 2) A good guy without glaring flaws is boring. Does anyone else find it tiresome and... kinda boring? Y'know, things like "my paladin is interesting, because he's a womanizer!" I may just be a weirdo, but I don't find anything particularly interesting about a character who has a bad temper, or with a sometimes wild libido, or an alcohol habit. I mean, these could be hooks for interesting things, but innately, not so much. Which is not to say that there's something wrong with flawed but heroic characters, again. What I object to is the idea that you can magically transmute a boring, bland hero into an interesting character by adding a mundane character flaw. I think what you end up with is a boring, bland hero with a mundane character flaw, which is not nearly the same as an actually interesting character. Conversely, just as adding a flaw to a boring character does not make the character interesting, I don't think that an interesting character needs some significant character flaw to be interesting. Of course, heroic-but-flawed characters can be interesting, but they're not the only ones. Someone who is blindly conformist and totally predictable might be boring, but deviation from that isn't necessarily a character flaw, but could be an aspect of the character's goodness and heroism. Colonel Dax from Paths of Glory, for instance, isn't a blind conformist, and he can be interesting and unpredictable, turning down the promotion that General Broulard expects him to take, but that's an aspect of his heroism, not a character flaw.
ericSHINRA 09-30-06, 09:52 PM	I agree that adding a tiny, perhaps insignifigant flaw in order to flesh out a character doesn't instantly make him original or interesting. It really depends on the flaw, however, and how the player uses it. For example, I'm going to be playing a Bard in my next campaign who has a burning lust for cancer(i.e. he smokes, a lot). Because the he's known much party for so long, one of the characters in particular is avid about him qutting or at least cutting back and while I suppose this is more of a habbit then a flaw it can make for interesting arguements and reactions. I think if your flaw can bring out a reaction or make the story more interesting it's perfectly alright but you shouldn't include one just say, "Oh, no. He's not bland... he's got a smoking habbit!"
aleshandre 10-01-06, 11:31 AM	I have to agree here. Having a character flaw does not an interesting character make. Take Iron Man for example; he's a raging alcoholic, but that's not what makes him interesting. What makes him interesting is that he struggles to overcome the alcohol and fights crime in an ultra-awesome suit of powered armor. Flaws don't make a person (or character) interesting, rather the actions taken to overcome them. On the other hand lacking character flaws does not make a character boring. The personality not the flaws or lack thereof make a character interesting.
Stormbrand 10-02-06, 01:41 AM	I would say what makes my paladin interesting is not his weaknesses, so much as how his failings interact with his code. Also, what is a flaw? Again, using the same paladin, he was extremely forgiving, so much that it confused people. He point-blank refused to develop a personal grudge or react to insults. This was very noble of him, it also kept everyone else really off-balance when they saw it in practice. Playing a character with 23 CHA is difficult when you want the rest of the table to get that feeling. The phrase I used to explain how he does it to the other players worked well, "His leadership gives him around 580 followers. He knows each of them by name." Just being so gracious and determined at the same time made him interesting. This was someone who very much lived in the present, he very rarely spoke of himself aside from his current task, otherwise he spoke either business or about the other person (tried to take an interest in everybody). Of course, he was very sarcastic, and had a forceful personality (he never so much made requests as he did announce his intent) which could be considered a flaw by some people.