What do you like/dislike in a protagonist?
- Thread starter Thomas Barnsley
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It really depends on the work and the character. For example, I might say that I dislike super powerful and perfect protagonists. I might say that I want the character to have motivations that matter in the story. That they need to shape the story by making decisions. Yet, I love Saitama and that dude goes completely against those sentiments.
At the end of the day, it depends on the work. I can say that in most works a main character needs some sort of goal that they are driven to accomplish, but that's not necessary. It certainly does help in a long running series, though.
At the end of the day, it depends on the work. I can say that in most works a main character needs some sort of goal that they are driven to accomplish, but that's not necessary. It certainly does help in a long running series, though.
Really? I gotta ask--why? What do you like about it? Sure, Holo is a pretty interesting character, but apart from that I don't see the appeal.Dreiko said:
I just love the chemistry between the two main chars and want to see what will come out of it. It's pure curiosity combined with fun. All those little interactions are great. Holo just hits all the right spots for me, even her gluttony makes her into a kindred spirit. The supporting cast is also very good. Col for one (the little boy they start traveling with) initially seemed like a nuisance and I didn't like the idea of him tagging along at first since he would get in the way of those chemistry moments but I ended up appreciating him all the same.Queen Michael said:
The economics part is take it or leave it and not really all that interesting so the books that focus too much on that stuff were less interesting but I like the heroes so much that I power through those parts without trouble.
What i like is to see the protagonist struggle: Its no fun when everything in the story goes perfectly according to the plan, nor when the protagonist has always an ace up they sleeve to save the day. People are people and they do make mistakes. That's the main reason i hate Steven Seagal movies - he absolutely demolishes every enemy thrown at him no sweat and there is no real challenge to overcome or anything. At the end it get super stale when he bulldozes yet another squadron of enemies without a single scratch, so i start rooting for the now more relatable villain instead.
Also please make him/her care, its another thing that bugs me when the protagonist (looking at you Seagal) dosen't even flinch when he finds the bodies of his now dead allies (or never mentions them ever again. Seriously bro ? It's your FRIENDS we are talking about here.)
Also please make him/her care, its another thing that bugs me when the protagonist (looking at you Seagal) dosen't even flinch when he finds the bodies of his now dead allies (or never mentions them ever again. Seriously bro ? It's your FRIENDS we are talking about here.)
Being too relatable is a protagonist flaw to me, I don't need stories of individuals I get, I already know myself better than most. Show me ore than I can ever in a world I could only hope to strive for. Sounds freaky and fun.
I'd say I'm more infuriated by the writing conventions used when it comes to a protagonist more than the protagonist themselves. For instance, I hate it when protagonists are manipulated into being essential for the antagonist's plan to work or even worse, that the plan of the villain works whether the protagonists do anything or not, especially in video games, it gives the impression the world would be better off if the protagonists spent their whole lives in bed. SPOILER, an example would be Final Fantasy 13-2, Serah's death and the Big Bad's goal to destroy the world would have gone off without a hitch regardless of anything Serah or Noel did, if anything they accelerated both events. In fact, there's even an alternate ending where Serah and Noel just live the rest of their lives in a dream world just before actually trying to stop the Big Bad that would have resulted in the world ending much later than it does in any of the other endings.
Another thing I hate is protagonists who refuse to kill under any circumstances no matter how incredibly obvious it becomes that the only way to truly stop the antagonist is to kill them. It's just an excuse to keep the antagonist around longer, and there are far better ways to do the same thing without a No Killing Rule. It's even worse when the protagonist mows down random mooks left and right yet stays their hand when it comes to the actual antagonist while act all morally stuck up about it. Comic books are rife with these sorts of protagonists.
I hate those purest of the pure protagonists, the ones with no character flaws whatsoever. One example would be Sora of Kingdom Hearts. He's eternally cheerful, unbearably naive and a friend to everybody no matter how many times he's screwed over, isn't proactive outside player control, and constantly kicks the butts of anyone and anything in his way seemingly effortlessly despite only a few months or so of training for no other reason than he's the protagonist. I've found every other protagonist in the KH series to be much much more interesting than Sora for the simple fact they actually seem human.
Last hate, is the idiot plot protagonists. Now, I don't mind if a protagonist is stupid, as long as their stupidity is funny, isn't detrimental to what the protagonists' role in the story, and isn't being used to keep the plot together. It's fine if the protagonists are tricked, driven into a panic, whatever, but if someone that actually lived in that world and that had an IQ greater than a fish wouldn't be stupid enough to do something no matter how badly compromised they were, the protagonists shouldn't do it.
One thing I like in a protagonist is that they are internally conflicted. This doesn't mean they need to be morally grey in any fashion, they can be pure good or pure evil, just that they have problems, vices, lines they struggle crossing, and so forth. Just be careful with this one, since one hate is a character that is internally conflicted that will never, EVER shut up about their conflicts especially at the most inappropriate times.
Another like is for video games protagonists that can be shaped by the player, but have voices and a personality of their own. Commander Shepard for instance can be either male or female, ruthless or compassionate, rude or polite, but there's an underlying person there independent of the player's choices, it helps greatly with the immersion. This is one of the reasons I like the Fallout 4 protagonists so much, having an actual voice that time helps with the immersion too.
Another thing I hate is protagonists who refuse to kill under any circumstances no matter how incredibly obvious it becomes that the only way to truly stop the antagonist is to kill them. It's just an excuse to keep the antagonist around longer, and there are far better ways to do the same thing without a No Killing Rule. It's even worse when the protagonist mows down random mooks left and right yet stays their hand when it comes to the actual antagonist while act all morally stuck up about it. Comic books are rife with these sorts of protagonists.
I hate those purest of the pure protagonists, the ones with no character flaws whatsoever. One example would be Sora of Kingdom Hearts. He's eternally cheerful, unbearably naive and a friend to everybody no matter how many times he's screwed over, isn't proactive outside player control, and constantly kicks the butts of anyone and anything in his way seemingly effortlessly despite only a few months or so of training for no other reason than he's the protagonist. I've found every other protagonist in the KH series to be much much more interesting than Sora for the simple fact they actually seem human.
Last hate, is the idiot plot protagonists. Now, I don't mind if a protagonist is stupid, as long as their stupidity is funny, isn't detrimental to what the protagonists' role in the story, and isn't being used to keep the plot together. It's fine if the protagonists are tricked, driven into a panic, whatever, but if someone that actually lived in that world and that had an IQ greater than a fish wouldn't be stupid enough to do something no matter how badly compromised they were, the protagonists shouldn't do it.
One thing I like in a protagonist is that they are internally conflicted. This doesn't mean they need to be morally grey in any fashion, they can be pure good or pure evil, just that they have problems, vices, lines they struggle crossing, and so forth. Just be careful with this one, since one hate is a character that is internally conflicted that will never, EVER shut up about their conflicts especially at the most inappropriate times.
Another like is for video games protagonists that can be shaped by the player, but have voices and a personality of their own. Commander Shepard for instance can be either male or female, ruthless or compassionate, rude or polite, but there's an underlying person there independent of the player's choices, it helps greatly with the immersion. This is one of the reasons I like the Fallout 4 protagonists so much, having an actual voice that time helps with the immersion too.
The lowest common denominator protagonist needs to be relate-able, without being boring. It is much easier to create good antagonists for this reason. With protagonist you're forced to walk a finer line. Few extremes are possible unless your protagonist is geared for a very specific market segment owing to a specific piece of content, a more uncommon denominator.
So it depends on the content, the market, etc. There are some universally good traits however, as mentioned above one includes internal conflict. Helps stave off boring. Another might be a sense of vulnerability. If your protagonist is invincible, then there are few conflicts they need to overcome.
So it depends on the content, the market, etc. There are some universally good traits however, as mentioned above one includes internal conflict. Helps stave off boring. Another might be a sense of vulnerability. If your protagonist is invincible, then there are few conflicts they need to overcome.
That's funny; the parts I like the most is the stuff about economics. I always enjoy it when a writer's clearly done his homework.Dreiko said:
I always endeavor to suspend my disbelief so even when they haven't I just take it as "the principles of the universe that this story takes place in differ from ours" or something along those lines. In this specific situation you have a very clear take on the real middle ages however so yeah, it does add to the story. It's not that I actively dislike those parts, they just aren't at all why I read the series. Since you seem to like those but still overall dislike the series, I guess we agree that they're not the focus of the series, weather they are good or bad.Queen Michael said:
Great points guys, thanks! It sounds like the main points were as follows:
- no Mary Sue, first and foremost
- a complex/morally grey/conflicted/redemption seeking protagonist is pretty hot in the Escapist userbase. I'd say that's ubiquitously acknowledged by most people but it's a good point.
- behaviour that makes sense is critical. That isn't to say that a character must always act in the best and most rational manner, more that their behaviour should be in some way explicable in the given context. Behaviour should not be forced for the plot's sake.
- proactivity is good, intelligence is good, charisma is good, toughness is good, but obviously any personality trait can be done away with or inverted and still make a working protagonist provided it's done right.
- fallibility. We like to see that our protagonist can fail. In a similar vein, we do not like to see our protagonist handed every opportunity they need without any effort on their part.
- a protagonist need not necessarily be relatable, and in fact should actively not be relatable according to some users! I found this one particularly interesting. I personally can think of a few very dear protagonists who I liked because I saw aspects of myself in them, so I don't know if I agree, but it's certainly worth thinking about further. I suppose the point is moot in the end, since any vaguely human protagonist you come up with can probably be related to by some reader out there.
- cliches; be careful with them.
- no harem protagonists. Don't worry, I wasn't planning to make my work of fiction a harem anime/manga.
- ultimately, the protagonist should work in symbiosis with the plot and their setting, as different protagonists would be suitable to different stories. That's the reality I suppose, and what makes things exciting!
- you can't please everyone.
Hopefully this helps me pin down a couple of candidates.
- no Mary Sue, first and foremost
- a complex/morally grey/conflicted/redemption seeking protagonist is pretty hot in the Escapist userbase. I'd say that's ubiquitously acknowledged by most people but it's a good point.
- behaviour that makes sense is critical. That isn't to say that a character must always act in the best and most rational manner, more that their behaviour should be in some way explicable in the given context. Behaviour should not be forced for the plot's sake.
- proactivity is good, intelligence is good, charisma is good, toughness is good, but obviously any personality trait can be done away with or inverted and still make a working protagonist provided it's done right.
- fallibility. We like to see that our protagonist can fail. In a similar vein, we do not like to see our protagonist handed every opportunity they need without any effort on their part.
- a protagonist need not necessarily be relatable, and in fact should actively not be relatable according to some users! I found this one particularly interesting. I personally can think of a few very dear protagonists who I liked because I saw aspects of myself in them, so I don't know if I agree, but it's certainly worth thinking about further. I suppose the point is moot in the end, since any vaguely human protagonist you come up with can probably be related to by some reader out there.
- cliches; be careful with them.
- no harem protagonists. Don't worry, I wasn't planning to make my work of fiction a harem anime/manga.
- ultimately, the protagonist should work in symbiosis with the plot and their setting, as different protagonists would be suitable to different stories. That's the reality I suppose, and what makes things exciting!
- you can't please everyone.
Hopefully this helps me pin down a couple of candidates.
To put it frankly, make the character believable within the context of the story and have his actions make sense within the context of the story and you're fine by me. That doesn't mean make him realistic, if the context of the story demands an over-the-top larger-then-life character, make it so. It also doesn't mean the actions have to be logical. If the character is a good natured moron he's still a moron.
How you feel about this?Baffle2 said:
Remember the cliches are that for a reason. While they can be overused or used badly don't forget that they have their place. Far too many writers think they should do away with them completely and end up with a jumbled mess of a story.Thomas Barnsley said:
Normalish?
Or flawed...just not so flawed that it becomes the primary character trait.
For some reason, I really dig Tanya in Youjo Senki. She's ridiculously flawed (outside of the powerful combat thing, which has an explanation in universe), but you can see the human element and understand why she makes the (occasionally really morally questionable) decisions she does within the broader context.
And she fails to achieve her goals as often as she succeeds, which is fun.
Not a fan of the Mary Sue archetype any more than I am the Gary Stu or the perpetually downtrodden/purposefully tortured for the sake of being tortured character like in GoT or TWD or something.
Or flawed...just not so flawed that it becomes the primary character trait.
For some reason, I really dig Tanya in Youjo Senki. She's ridiculously flawed (outside of the powerful combat thing, which has an explanation in universe), but you can see the human element and understand why she makes the (occasionally really morally questionable) decisions she does within the broader context.
And she fails to achieve her goals as often as she succeeds, which is fun.
Not a fan of the Mary Sue archetype any more than I am the Gary Stu or the perpetually downtrodden/purposefully tortured for the sake of being tortured character like in GoT or TWD or something.
Everything about Dante and Donte is so true. I don't understand people prefer that "Dante" over the original. I hear the reasons are due to Donte acting more like a real person, than a cartoon character, and I'm like "what the fuck are you talking about?!". Hello, the series was about 1/2 human, 1/2 demon, and the reboot is about some brown haired protagonist who's 1/2 angel, 1/2 demon. How is he[Donte] anymore real? The reboot version is your generic rebel without the cause who fighting the "man". Nothing that special, and don't even get me started on Vergil. The only thing they got right with him was his contempt for humanity and that's it. I admit that I do,barely, tolerate the reboot version of Dante, but that is not saying much. In fact, the only character I like from DmC (2013) is Kat. The Definitve Edition (a 7.5 compared to the first release which was a 5/10) may fixed most things gameplay wise, but the game still can't hold a candle to games like Bayonetta, the other DMCs (barring 2), or Metal Gear Rising. Hell, most of Grasshopper Studios action games are better than DmC (2013)Dr. McD said:
Like:
* Kind, caring, considerate, and smart. You can have your character be a moron as long it fits within universe, develop as a character and get smarter, or as long as it's funny.
*Pragmatic, and complexity.
* He or she can have flaws, just don't add too much, or cases where they never called out on questionable actions.
Dislike:
* The idiot dad. The Simpsons are to blame for this, but Family Guy and South Park took it to another extreme. Which is ironic, because Randy was smart and reasonable in seasons 1-4 in SP. It's got the point where you want see these guys die from their stupidity.
* Protagonist that we're supposed to be as sympathetic or heroic, yet they lack qualities of gaining any smypathy or never do anything heroic at all. Designate Heorism at its finest. Early seasons of Korra suffered from this in terms of heroism, while in the latter I could not stand what they did to Toph, and hated Suyin and the Spirits.
* The tsundere. These aren't characters anymore. Their copies of a copy, of that copy, from the original copy that thinks it's being original. If you're not into the guy, or gal, then don't talk and go about your own business. Too many cases where I predicted where the usually nice guy, falls in love with the one that's been a constant ***** since day one. That is why I avoid harems like the plauge. The only harem I like are the Tenchi series, and depending on the continuity, even the writers fucked up hard.
* Idiot heroes. The big reason why most shounen I find boring. Ever since Gokus became popular, it's lets have a hero like him, except with a different hat. The funny thing is Goku less stupid and more so naive and lacking certain social skilld. Honestly, the only smart protagonists I've seen in shonen that are the main character are Yusuke Yurameshi (albeit he's book dumb due to being lazy and a delinquent), Light Yagami, Yoh Asakura, Kenshiro, Kenshin, and almost all of the Joestars.
* "Loser" protagonist. This why I can never watch Danny Phantom, Ed, Edd, n Eddy, CatDog, or Fairly Odd parents ever again. Everyone, their "friends" and "family", and the entire universe seems to go out of their a way be dicks to our characters.
Likes:
There being a ending in mind to the story. This means the story is defined and the character has a path. They are going to grow to get them to the end. Its not random like most shows and therefore is generally more thought out. Supernatural s1-5, Babylon 5 and Person of Interest are examples. Lost is an example of pretending they knew where they were going but just making it up as they were going along. Characters didn't really grow after the first season.
Making the characters relatable. I got most of Walter White's transformation except the original step - he didn't want to take money from Grey Matter. It would have been better if they just didn't try to give him money. It has to be something that, even if it was stupid, can make sense to the world and this characters motivations.
Character transformation needs time to gestate. Everyone cracks sometimes but its not one moment that breaks you - its usually the last straw. Show the person under stress. Smaller mistakes that eventually lead to the big one.
Obsession can be a good thing to investigate in a story. The new Lego Batman movie shows how his strengths can be weakness, particularly if you cant let go.
So, I realised, a lot of these are not specific traits. I like characters that are part of the story, that are irreplaceable to the narrative. The characters in shows like CSI or NCIS are so interchangeable, they don't matter
There being a ending in mind to the story. This means the story is defined and the character has a path. They are going to grow to get them to the end. Its not random like most shows and therefore is generally more thought out. Supernatural s1-5, Babylon 5 and Person of Interest are examples. Lost is an example of pretending they knew where they were going but just making it up as they were going along. Characters didn't really grow after the first season.
Making the characters relatable. I got most of Walter White's transformation except the original step - he didn't want to take money from Grey Matter. It would have been better if they just didn't try to give him money. It has to be something that, even if it was stupid, can make sense to the world and this characters motivations.
Character transformation needs time to gestate. Everyone cracks sometimes but its not one moment that breaks you - its usually the last straw. Show the person under stress. Smaller mistakes that eventually lead to the big one.
Obsession can be a good thing to investigate in a story. The new Lego Batman movie shows how his strengths can be weakness, particularly if you cant let go.
So, I realised, a lot of these are not specific traits. I like characters that are part of the story, that are irreplaceable to the narrative. The characters in shows like CSI or NCIS are so interchangeable, they don't matter