Your Favorite Character is Objectively Flawed (and That’s Okay)
❥ GENRE: EXPLORATORY ESSAY
❥ COMMISSIONED OR SELF MADE: SELF MADE
❥ W/C: 1,387 (W/O SOURCES)
ঞ SUMMARY: Fans can often misread or even defend character flaws based on personal bias. Rather than viewing characters in the storyline, we find ourselves projecting our own perception of them. There isn't anything wrong with that (obviously), but is there a limit to such perception?
ᰔ KERMIT'S NOTE: Hey guys! Sorry I'm not as active as much anymore. Personal life has been really draining me, and I have to leave for college soon. 😭😭 Lately, I’ve been in a mood to write another exploratory essay cause why not? If you like them, feel free to ask for more! Thanks for reading!
ʚ WARNINGS: Spoilers from mentioned media.
Being in certain fanbases is like gambling: You pray to get content you enjoy, but then you get something... not so great. And that is fine! Fans are allowed to create content they want. However, no matter the fandom, there is one common trait that they share, and that is defending flawed characters. Now, there is nothing wrong with defending flawed characters. But how come we feel the need to defend them anyway? You could argue that you like the character, but it’s way more than just that reason. In Relatability, Realism, and the Importance of Flawed Characters, Joshua Laine explained that “as readers, we often gravitate towards characters who exhibit those same flaws we struggle to correct” (Laine, 2022). In fact, we’ll go as far as to “form stronger bonds with characters who conquer adversity [despite] their flaws” (Laine, 2022). But what happens when that bond becomes too strong, we forget why that character is flawed in the first place? A fanbase’s response to a flawed character often reveals more about our own values rather than the characters themselves, highlighting the complex relationship between fiction and reality.
Every character in fiction has a flaw. Some are small enough to blend into other traits, and some are so large that the audience’s opinion of the character might vary because of it. Some characters might utilize their flaws to achieve their complex goals or cope with their past. Those characters are considered morally grey. According to Morally Gray by Katie Davis, a morally grey character (MGC for short) is “a character that is neither good nor bad” (Davis, 2023). They follow their own ambitions and often use them as a frontier to hide their weaknesses. Some examples of MGCs I have include Guts, Godot, and Kotal Kahn.
Guts (Berserk): Because of his brutal environment and severe psychological trauma, Guts became extremely violent and brash, constantly pushing away any concepts of relationships in fear of betrayal and deception. However, Guts gradually learns how to trust others over time. By allowing himself to form bonds other than Casca (who was mentally regressed at the time), Guts slowly strays away from his internal struggles to focus on what really matters to him: The people he truly cares for.
Godot (Ace Attorney): Despite being deemed a tragic character in the Ace Attorney fandom, Godot is the definition of a morally realistic character. After losing his partner, Mia Fey, Godot’s grief and insecurity cause him to lash out at others, specifically Phoenix Wright, who was trained under Mia. By the end of Trials and Tribulations, Godot takes responsibility by confessing to the murder of Misty Fey. Overall, Godot is a multifaceted antagonist who makes mistakes, just like every other character in Ace Attorney.
Kotal Kahn (Mortal Kombat): Hate him or love him, he is an interesting character, to say the least. Despite being an antagonist, he is one of the “tamest” rulers of Outworld. Throughout his time in Mortal Kombat, he has shown himself to care for his empire and rarely displays any arrogance and malice (I think the only time he has shown genuine animosity was in his dialogue when he interacts with the Earthrealmers and Tarkatans). However, he does not stray away from harsh and even inhumane treatment of Outworld Inhabitants like previous leaders. However, he would eventually mend these wounds and restore the Tarkatans and Shokans, uniting more of Outworld together.
These three characters are considered morally grey because they follow their own sense of rules and justice. However, when they realize they only act this way because of their internalized conflicts, they take responsibility and correct their mistakes, making them redeemed characters. But what if a character is considered irredeemable? What then?
An irredeemable character is a character who is not willing to redeem themselves. In What Exactly is “Irredeemable," Anyway? - Rejecting Actions Disqualify Characters from Redemption, Bridget Jandovitz argues that “what ‘decides’ if a character is redeemable is the character themself, not the evilness of their past actions,” meaning the only way for a character to be redeemable is when they are willing to be one (Jandovitz, 2024). Ultimately, it is up to the author to tell that story satisfyingly. Now, there are numerous examples of irredeemable characters, some famous ones being the Joker, Dio Brando, Shou Tucker, and Johan Liebert. However, one irredeemable character I had in mind is Bi-Han (Sub-Zero) from Mortal Kombat.
HEAR ME OUT. HEAR ME OUT, GUYS. I am aware that Bi-Han (for the most part) is a grey character. Other than his conflicts with the Shirai Ryu, he sticks with his goal of becoming a successful grandmaster within the Lin Kuei. Moreover, I am also aware that the Shirai Ryu massacre was not his fault and was coordinated by Quan Chi, leading him to be wrongfully killed by Scorpion. However, before all of that, Bi-Han was already a cold-hearted assassin who vowed to increase the power of the Lin Kuei by any means necessary. By the end of the original Mortal Kombat Tournament, Bi-Han's transformation into Noob Saibot had only fueled the evil within his soul, stripping him of pride, compassion, and everything else that made him human. He quite literally becomes the incarnation of evil, even going as far as planning to take over NetherRealm.
In Mortal Kombat 1 (2023), Bi-Han betrays Titan God Liu Kang and works alongside Shang Tsung in promises that the Lin Kuei will become more powerful. He becomes so corrupt, he chases out his brothers, Kuai Liang and Tomas, from the clan. In the DLC: Khaos Reigns, Bi-Han's lust for power and chaos intensifies after being killed and turned into Noob Saibot by Titan Havik. In his ending, he has awoken from his comatose state and plans to bring an anarchist utopia to all timelines. Throughout his entire character arc, Bi-Han is driven by ambition, lust for power, and a commitment to the dark forces.
Now, where does the fanbase align with all of this? Well, many Mortal Kombat fans argued that Bi-Han could have been redeemed since his humanity was wrongfully stripped away from him. While that is true, Bi-Han was shown to be ruthless and savage even before he became Noob Saibot. Repeatedly, he shows no remorse for what he has done, and it is unlikely that he will change unless he is threatened by an opposing party (but then he will go back to his own way). Unless Bi-Han is written to feel regretful and act for what he has done, a redemption arc would do more harm to his character rather than good.
A character must go through a redemption arc if they wish to make amends. But what is even a redemption arc? Well, a redemption arc is a story arc where an immoral character is redeemed and makes right for their wrongdoings (or where the audience perceives them as doing so). It forces the character to grow from their mistakes and move forward. Some examples of good redemption arcs include sacrificing one’s life for others, selflessly saving someone else from danger, and sacrificing an opportunity so that another character can seize it.
For redemption arcs to work, the author must consider what ways the character is represented in the story as well as the setting presented. They cannot just shoehorn a redemption arc because the audience will know. It is why redemption arcs are executed poorly if the characters’ morals/actions are considered irredeemable by the plot. Ultimately, redemption arcs are character development. You cannot rid an immoral character of all their wrongdoings just because they apologized and hugged it out. Redemption is only written well if a character is willing to change for themselves and not for the sake of others’ approval.
I want to make it clear that there is nothing wrong with liking/disliking flawed characters. In fact, the characters I mentioned above are some of my favorites (except Bi-Han, I hate that kid). Regardless, it is important to take a step back and ask what truly makes a character flawed. Writing/developing characters is not as simple as people like to say it is. Which is why showing empathy is the most useful method to understand a character. And who knows? Maybe a character is better flawed.
Good morning everypony, the trolls fandom needs to handle different opinions better 😀
I can think he’s a silly ass goose while also knowing he’s a loser !! It’s called a complex character! Creek is extremely complex to me because I have hyperempathy, a minor in psych for multiple reasons, a hyperfixation on trolls, and understand there’s only so much you can do with a character in the length of a movie 😭
People are allowed to headcanon Creek as a severely mentally destroyed person if he lived, and how he most likely regrets what he did.
He’s also, surprise surprise, a living being!! Living beings are inherently selfish creatures. I argued with this dude about a makeshift trolley theory bc he couldn’t handle me calling the guru “silly”. Creek begged for his life, saying he’d do anything out of desperation and fear. I don’t believe he expected that to go how it did, with him having to lure the village out or else he’d be devoured. I dunno about you, but i don’t think any being that has baseline selfish desires would pick themselves to die if they were in that situation. Creek was a young adult, he had a lot of life experience that still needed to happen. And on top of that, I don’t believe he was very content with his life if he was so quick to “drop the mask” and sacrifice others. He was seen as a god in the village, do you understand the mental effect that can have on someone? Especially if his whole “perfect guru” thing was a facade. All eyes were on him everywhere. From beliefs, to help, to practically worshipping him.
Saying to me how he joked with poppy doesn’t do shit, because if we’re digging into my headcanons then i have an idea about that too. I feel Creek did that so she’d stop fixating on him and actually do her damn job as queen: saving the kingdom. Poppy was a childish person, love struck and obsessed with Creek. She wanted him safe, and that meant ignoring the impending doom the kingdom was going to face if chef found the trolls in the village. For her trolley problem, she picked him first and assumed she could run back and protect the rest after.
In the end, the plan she executed worked out. But it’s understandable for people to be frustrated with her saving Creek and prioritizing him.
If he knew the situation, which he at the least did when confronted by her, he was most likely frustrated and disappointed she cared about him more than anyone else. She risked the lives of the entire snack pack for him. If he had baseline empathy and the “perfect guru” thing was a facade, he’d of felt guilty and a bit embarrassed he was put above everyone. All those lives were blood on his hands if any of them died while saving him.
Creek did technically do what he did for her, forcing her hand to hate him and focus on the kingdom. And he wasn’t lying when he said he’d have to live with what he did for the rest of his life.
No, [This Character] doesn't need a redemption arc. Because [This Character] is perfect as they are in all their problematic glory. Let [This Character] be scum, they deserve to be a little unhinged. Yes, [This Character] has done despicable things and I love them for it.
That rant really wasn’t necessary. I get you like the dude. But you really should have made your own post instead of presenting a huge ass wall of text without any paragraph breaks that’s a pain to read. Really annoying.
Ooo well i can space out the messages but that rant really wasnt meant for anyone besides the person responding to my reblog. I have a lot of thoughts about lots of things, including characters labeled as “irredeemable”. Im a writer and have a minor in psych. So everything about me, including my writing, is me babbling nonsense about characters and their complexities past “haha funny trolls”.
If that isn’t your style, simply don’t read it. But I’m not going to shut myself up about how i feel Creek is over villainized 🫡
My two cents: There is a different between a redemption arc and a character finally making one good life choice and expecting/being forgiven. Congratulations, you validated your existence! You didn’t validate your actions.
