There's a lot to be said for a character that can be torn down into a base component, and a lot of cynical essentialists like to look at characters as archetypes with accessories added on. Â Papalymo, for example is "Stodgy Wizard" with "Aggravating Sidekick" added onto it. Â That's a fine character, and there's a lot to do with that, but it's not the only method of doing things, nor is it the necessarily correct method.
Merylvyb could easily be said to be "Warrior Queen" with "Pirate" tacked on, but it doesn't actually say much about her, unlike the Papalymo example above.  She requires more explanation because she is a more nuanced character.  The Admiral of Limsa Lominsa is defined not only by who she is, but by what she is as well.  She would not be the same character without the weight of responsibility placed upon her by her position, and she would not handle that responsibility the same way were she in charge of Gridania or U'Dah.
As much as we may try to define our characters as individuals independent of their circumstances, eventually all characters, if they are written long enough, become shaped by their setting and experiences individually if they were not crafted that way from the beginning.
An Elezen Dragoon and a Hyur Dragoon might be similar in experience, but different in personality, but a Miqo'te Dragoon would be different in both. Â Done well it provides an interesting perspective on both the character's personality and their circumstances, and even done poorly it could provide new perspectives, which would allow for new interaction experiences.
Since this is pulling from the other thread, and this thread is directly in reference to it, I would like to respond by saying that when it comes to lore, it exists to define a world we play in and set up the rules for interacting with it, but in a collective creative environment such as the one we have, it also provides a framework which allows for exceptions to those rules.
While I don't believe that one should break the lore without knowing it, and the reason why and consequences of the break, adhering to it for the purpose of comfort or some kind of misinterpreted sense of authority, forgoing exceptions to it, is not productive and is entirely non-conducive to an entertaining dynamic group experience.
And we are all here to be entertainers even as we are being entertained.
/twocents
Merylvyb could easily be said to be "Warrior Queen" with "Pirate" tacked on, but it doesn't actually say much about her, unlike the Papalymo example above.  She requires more explanation because she is a more nuanced character.  The Admiral of Limsa Lominsa is defined not only by who she is, but by what she is as well.  She would not be the same character without the weight of responsibility placed upon her by her position, and she would not handle that responsibility the same way were she in charge of Gridania or U'Dah.
As much as we may try to define our characters as individuals independent of their circumstances, eventually all characters, if they are written long enough, become shaped by their setting and experiences individually if they were not crafted that way from the beginning.
An Elezen Dragoon and a Hyur Dragoon might be similar in experience, but different in personality, but a Miqo'te Dragoon would be different in both. Â Done well it provides an interesting perspective on both the character's personality and their circumstances, and even done poorly it could provide new perspectives, which would allow for new interaction experiences.
Since this is pulling from the other thread, and this thread is directly in reference to it, I would like to respond by saying that when it comes to lore, it exists to define a world we play in and set up the rules for interacting with it, but in a collective creative environment such as the one we have, it also provides a framework which allows for exceptions to those rules.
While I don't believe that one should break the lore without knowing it, and the reason why and consequences of the break, adhering to it for the purpose of comfort or some kind of misinterpreted sense of authority, forgoing exceptions to it, is not productive and is entirely non-conducive to an entertaining dynamic group experience.
And we are all here to be entertainers even as we are being entertained.
/twocents
