How can a blind person fight an able bodied person in a farmhouse, and still manage to get away?
They can’t.
Blind martial artists do exist. They’re something of a rarity, but blindnessdoesn’t mean you can’t learn martial arts. They can’t learn it the same way asighted martial artist would; it requires an entirely different teachingmethod. Blindness also doesn’t mean they can’t win a fight. But, being able tosee is a critical advantage.
It’s the difference between knowing there’s a knife on the kitchen table,and not. It’s the difference between knowing your opponent is going for thatknife, or not. It’s the ability to transition stance and techniques to dealwith a suddenly armed opponent.
If you’re sitting there thinking, “but, they’ll hear it.” Yes. But the sounditself is far less informative than the ability to see what your opponent isdoing. Was that a knife? A loaded 1911? The TV remote? If you can see it, thenyou know. But, if you can’t…
In fact, of the two major sensory disabilities, a deaf fighter will be farbetter suited to deal with actual combat than a blind one. You can operatewithout being able to hear your opponent. You’re still at a seriousdisadvantage, but it is far less debilitating.
That’s the first problem, the second is escape. How does your character knowit’s a farm house? More importantly, even once they find a way outside, how dothey know what direction to run in?
If they know where they are, then that’s partially averted. If it’s theirhome, they can get around, and know where to go for safety. But, if it’sunfamiliar territory, then running won’t make things better.
Even in the best circumstances, without a disability, getting away from anattacker takes quick thinking, situational awareness, and some running. Forsomeone who’s blind, that’s not impossible, but it is much more difficult. Theyneed to know where they are, where they can find safety, and how to get betweenthose two points without being harmed or killed in the process. Without usingvisual cues to establish or help with any of that.
We get variations on questions fairly frequently. But, disabilities meanthere are things characters cannot do. Things a normal person could do easilybecome difficult. Things a normal person could do with difficulty becomeimpossible. It doesn’t mean they can’t participate. Or that they don’t havevalue. But it does mean, for someone living with a disability, they can’tsimply overcome it on a whim.
I say this, and I still love Daredevil. I’ll still argue he’s one of themost compelling characters Stan Lee ever created. You can have a character whofinds strength in adversity. But, it never comes from disregarding hisdisability.
We get a lot of questions that run in a similar thread to this one. “Mycharacter lost an arm…” “Is deaf in one ear…” “Has PTSD…” “Is blindin one eye…” “Has no lower intestine…” And it follows to the inevitable, “howcan they ignore that and do what I want?” They can’t. You shouldn’t. Ignoringit is incredibly disrespectful to people that actually live with thosedisabilities, and, to borrow a term from roleplaying games, being a munchkin.These are very different issues from the original question, but, let’s hit eachone in turn.
The first is an extension of The Law of Conservation of Characters. This isa term that was coined (I think) by Roger Ebert. Basically, if you’re takingthe time to put a character in your story, they need to be there for a reason.He would use it as a test to identify the traitor/killer/surprise lagoonmonster, ahead of schedule by looking at the cast and identifying any characterthat did not serve a purpose.
The extension is to turn it around and be aware of this in your own writing.If you’re putting a character in your story, there needs to be a reason.Further, if they have a trait (any trait) it also needs to be there for areason. If you’re adding a character with a disability because, “you want to,”then you’re going to (at best) be pandering or (at worst) pretending to be inclusive tomake yourself feel better.
And, yes, actually talking about a disability is a legitimate reason to putit in your story. If you’re writing about the experiences of someone who haslost their sight, then that is a trait that needs to be there. If that’s thecase, then you really need to do some in depth research on the subjectbefore starting.
If you’re adding traits to a character because they add texture to the worldor provide red herrings, that can certainly be legitimate. For example: ifyou’re writing a murder mystery, and one of the suspects was a soldier whofought against the victim’s side during “the war,” then that’s both. Also, in agood classic murder mystery or spy thriller, a few extra red herring charactersaren’t necessarily a misstep.
But, at the same time, you do need to consider what those traits are, and ifthey’re appropriate for the story you’re trying to tell. If you’re writingabout a character escaping from kidnappers, then blindness or being aparaplegic will throw a monkey wrench into the entire endeavor.
If you’re writing a murder mystery, and the character with the clear motivecouldn’t be the killer, because they’re blind, and the victim was sniped… thenthat’s a piece of the puzzle.
I’m singling out mysteries here, because that’s one of few the genres thatembraces red herrings as plot devices.
If you’re simply adding disabilities to a character because you want to be,“inclusive…” Please, for fuck sake; stop. It’s not inclusive, it is, at best,pandering, and frequently, insulting.
So, let’s talk about munchkins, and what they mean to you as a writer.
If you’re somehow not familiar with the term, a munchkin is an RPG playerwho aggressively builds their characters to be as powerful as possible,subverting the rules and common sense as needed. As far as I know, the termdates back to UseNet posts in the early 90s, though the word itself is borrowedfrom The Wizard of Oz books.
The closest literary relative would be a Mary Sue, but that’s not really anapplicable analogy because of the methods a Munchkin uses to optimize theircharacter. Munchkinism is heavily dependent on a game’s specific rules, but, inextremely broad strokes, a Munchkin will take penalties in something they don’tcare about in order to boost the capabilities they’re using to exploit thesystem.
What does this mean? It goes back to what I was saying a minute ago. If you’regiving your character a trait, it needs to be there for a reason. The basictrade off mechanic that munchkins feed on is one that makes a lot of sense inbuilding a character. If you have a character who is socially inept, but veryintelligent, that makes sense as a basic design tradeoff. It is a quickreliable way to remind yourself that your characters are different people. Onedoes this, another does that.
Frequently, in Munchkinism, you’re looking for ways to take penalties thatwon’t actually matter, because you can just work around them, or trade thepenalties elsewhere. If you’re building a character as a combat piece, and nothingelse, that’s not really a problem. But, in roleplaying, as with writing, thefirst goal is to tell a story, not to demonstrate your prowess as a ruleslawyer.
You’ll see elements of this in some Mary Sues. The character, as written,has some horrible flaw that just… gets… ignored, by everyone. We’re toldthey’re socially awkward, but see no evidence of it in the actual text. We’retold they can’t drive, but we’re never shown any of day to day hindrance that causes.We’re told they’re pathologically afraid of violence… because they’refantastic at it? That’s not how that works.
And, that’s the problem with a lot of these questions. They boil down to, “Islapped a penalty on my character, now how do I cheat my way around it?” Youdon’t. You shouldn’t. Embrace it.
When you’re writing, you create the world and set the rules. You might beborrowing those rules from some approximation of reality, but you set them. Whatmakes characters interesting isn’t the things they can do, it’s the things thatlimit them. The things you put in front of your character that they can’tovercome without significant effort, or that they’re unwilling to yieldagainst, even when it breaks them. In creating your world, you need to setthose limits and work within them, rather than looking for ways to subvert them.
Characters who work against their limits are far more interesting andmemorable than ones who slip the bounds and stomp off. Sometimes that means you’vewritten a character who can’t fight. You can go two ways with that; they refuseto admit they’re not up for it, and keep getting beaten down, or they try towork their way around without resorting to violence.
How does a blind character get out of a rural farmhouse where they’re beingheld? By being smarter or more manipulative than their captors. By working outthe weak links in the social fabric of their captors. By finding a way tocontact someone in the outside world. By thinking, really, thinking about theirsituation, and making sure they have a plan for what they’ll do next. (Get aknife, stab the guy… what’s next?) That you’re asking, suggests you have nomore of an idea than I do, and you have more information on the setting.
Does blindness give them access to any more information that a sightedcharacter wouldn’t have? Maybe. But, if asked about a character with no priorhistory of violence, my final advice would be the same. You set up a situationwhere violence should be the last resort, and has the greatest risk of gettingyour character killed. Unless they want to die, their own ability in riskassessment should have pointed them somewhere else.
-Starke
Read this. Read all of it. Read it again.
“I slapped a penalty on my character, now how do I cheat my way around it?” You don’t. You shouldn’t. Embrace it.
There it is, folks. Right there. If you’re going to make your character have a disability or some other limitation, you have got to think it through. There’s no doubt about it that it’s hard work. Sometimes, the answer won’t come to you right away and you need to take days, weeks, even months, to figure this out.
Do your research. Think things through. Don’t take the easy way out developing your characters. Nothing makes a great plot go down the toilet faster than weak characters.
