This is just a thread to discuss what goes into creating a decent character, not specifically one from My Little Pony, but a good character in general. So the question of the day here is, what sort of things would be required for this character to be of quality, and on the converse, what sort of things signify a bad character; more specifically, the more subtle bad characters, not the outright horrible ones? In my opinion, a good character is essentially personified effort; a collaboration of both concentrated thought and reference. In my mind, a character of quality has certain foreshadowing hidden within their names or personalities.
This is an interesting thread. Some might say that part of what constitutes a good character is development; however, I would argue that development is only good in a dynamic character, or one that is supposed to change over the course of a story. Static characters are not bad, and as a matter of fact they are excellent tools for injecting symbolism into one's story. A good character is identifiable. They are separate from other constructs in the same story.
A good character is one that is flawed, yet evolves through time as your own abilities grow, whether that be through prose or comic illustration. A character with their own unique attributes and has been conveyed, altered and revised every so often to incorporate new ideas. Characters that combine to make an enthralling series and have their own element of individuality. I'm not a fan of making characters insanely powerful and seemingly flawless along with it, unless they were merely intended and constructed as a weapon of mass destruction or something along those lines. They can be difficult to defeat, especially since my characters revolve around biblical/religious storylines, however they are far from invincible and have plenty of personality/characteristic weaknesses, even if subtle, they bring something fragile about themselves that can be used against them and interesting into the story. If you're following a completely independant and original storyline, you can have a free, unrestricted approach to creating many new characters with their own abilities/weaknesses. However, If you're following a fandom, branching off/basing your work on inspiration or revolving your story around something that exists, you need to recognise the existing concepts and incorporate both conventional aspects (like race, weaponry, magic elements etc) whilst inducing your own unique spark to it. There's not much limitations to character development, as there shouldn't be, but people should be aware of what makes a character formidible enough to create atmosphere/interest/excitement/etc into the storyline.
You and I are rather similar in this aspect really. Whereas you create your characters based off of biblical allusions, I like to create my characters with greek and roman allusions by using the names of various gods and figures to give hints towards that specifics character's fate or personality.
Zephyr, WHERE ON EQUESTRIA ARE YOU FINDING THESE AVATARS!?!?! ON TOPIC: I believe a good character is created by the way they are written in relation to the audience. Take a random character and stare at their traits for a moment. You have some traits that people feel should be different to help them, while others may think those traits are their greatest strengths. Either way, both parties are relating to the same traits one way or another. A bland or stale character would probably have traits that nobody seems to have an opinion about, therefore cannot be criticized.
I think a good character needs to be only human. Maybe they are stubborn, or whiny sometimes, or even selfish. As long as there is more good than bad.
To create a character, I usually go through 3 steps: 1- Find someone interesting I know and create a highly concentrated version of their personality 2- Put the personality in a body which can either correspond with the personality or not 3- Make the character want things, and give them obstacles to get to those things Then throw them into a plot with a bunch of others who all have their flaws and strengths, and the fun ensures. ^^
It depends an awful lot on context, but one thing I believe is pretty universal (other than what has already been mentioned) is motivation. Whether hero or villain, comedic or tragic, a character needs to have a motivation, and he or she needs to react in a way that makes sense according to this (as well as their past experiences and general personality). And of course, Mary Sue traits are a huge drawback.
I centered Rashall, my main OC, off of myself in small ways actually so every time I role play as him I'm kind of actually playing out how I would react to certain instances. My other OC's on the other hand are completely made up off the top of my head. As to what makes a good character that's kind of hard to answer in one sitting I made a lot of my OC's, other than Rashall, off of either the Warhammer Fantasy or Warhammer 40k universes. I have also derived some off of real life organizations, such as the Blue Angels. I'm not sure what makes a good character sometimes the only one that fully knows is the creator themselves even then they might not even know fully.
Honestly, I think it depends on the situation. Like a non-relatable character can be excellent if the occasion warrants it. Someone who is so un-human you just naturally despise them. Like say, the Hive Mind from Warhammar 40K. No matter how you spin it, you hate that entity because it doesn't act human. No anger, no jealously, no mercy. Only one emotion, but not even on the same level as human. Hunger. It forces you to rally with the Imperium even if you dislike their methods just because you hate the Hive Mind. Same thing with the Chaos and Daemons as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue That's all you need to know.... Make it the opposite of that....
Actually, I disagree. A Mary Sue can still be a good character if used in the right context for the right reasons. A good example here would be Kristopherson from Fantastic Mr. Fox. While he seems an almost perfect character and essentially is with little to no flaws, it's used to advance the story by not only pressuring Mr. Fox into continuous his thieving ways, but it motivates his son as well to become more like him and eventually ends up becoming an important part of the conclusion. And we mustn't forget about Satire.
I like SyrinKitty's take on Mary Sues, but the extent of which she refers to them isn't clear. Characters (to me) need depth, typically through character building or personality shaping events. What makes them so prone to their decisions, or how will they react to this. Just enough to make you question something if the character is a main character/their situations are focal points. I have been working my on character development a lot in my revision because I don't want people to view any of my characters like that. (Alicorns are almost automatically labeled Mary Sues.)
