(09-03-2013, 10:10 AM)Theodric Brandt Wrote: As for my own character, I tend to prefer to portray them as being able to handle themselves but more on the anti-hero side of the fence. They're usually flawed, even if they're intentions are pure. I find it much more interesting than being a flawless hero who can do no wrong. I guess it's why characters from the 'Game of Thrones' setting such as Jaime Lannister, Catelyn Stark and Cersei Lannister fascinate me so much.Yeah, I tend towards this as well. It's not very often I play a character who's an honest goody-two-shoes - and when I do, they always have to have some kind of notable flaw (one has an annoying mental defect that makes speech very difficult for her, another tends towards dissociation when criticized in any way). My current main is a bit on the rough side - she means well and wants to become a hero, but is still interminably lazy when it comes to physical labor and possesses questionable ethics (though not morals - she's quite empathetic and it's the reason she's on a quest to become a hero in the first place).
But like many others in this thread, I must echo that the execution is really more important than the premise in any case. It's not really what flaws or strengths your character has that defines them, as much as how they deal with having those flaws or strengths. Someone with incredible martial might, for example, might despair at how their considerable ability is not enough to save everyone, for they cannot be everywhere at once. Someone who excels at all kinds of trades might find that they are completely at a loss as to what they want to focus on, and end up running into financial ruin because of it.
So I try not to judge based on concepts and premises, and more on whether or not someone is actually doing interesting things with those ideas. Unfortunately, Sturgeon's Law being what it is, most people have a difficult time with this. But it's not like I'm not going to give people a shot at it.
