seen from Hungary
seen from Egypt
seen from Austria
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from Netherlands
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from Vietnam
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from China
seen from Hungary
seen from United States
seen from United States
We needed more morally ambiguous Mike when it comes to Will. Not just him treating El like a weapon every time Will is in danger. This paladin is willing to kill for his cleric/sorcerer, and I’m not just talking about him fighting Demos or standing between Will and Vecna himself. Let him hold a human military soldier at knifepoint or gunpoint and threaten them with murder to get them to let go of Will. We all know he’d do that so let him do it!
What is the most morally dubious thing your OC has done that isn’t illegal?
I'm a bit late in this realization, but being up against Alkaloid, Switch is most likely to lose in the first round, huh? Since Alkaloid are kind of main character-esque and Switch tend to play a background role instead of being super plot relevant in main stories. Ah well, I guess they probably would have lost to about any unit in round 1 knowing them. Unless they needed a reason to help someone out in round 2. But they're rarely front and center so I doubt they'll make it anywhere close to first place.
I just love being a huge fan of a character who is flexible because you can do just about anything with them due to their moral ambiguity. A character who has enough history, but also theres not alot of information on them to truly define them making which makes it even more fun as it gives you more to think about. Like you can make em good or have them stay bad or make them not so bad. The possibilities are endless.
“Before there was time, before there was anything, there was nothing. And before there was nothing, there were monsters.” -The Lich
En resumidas cuentas, el caos y la intensidad van ganando la batalla contra sensatez y la poca cordura que me queda.
¿Qué puedo decir? El fuego en mi interior siempre acaba por consumirme.
A thought about character interiority/moral complexity
Here's some unsolicited writing advice inspired by manuscripts I have to review/improve: A character having doubts is not the same thing as a character having depth.
Sometimes it is depth. Other times, it looks like they're holding up a sign to the audience saying: PLEASE UNDERSTAND I'M MORALLY COMPLICATED PLEASE DO NOT THINK I'M BAD PLEASE CLAP FOR MY CONSCIENCE
Not that self-pitying is a problem by itself. A character may be reactive on purpose. But I can tell when it's not intended, and so can readers. I get it. Writers are afraid of their characters being misunderstood or... gasps... not likeable enough. And nowadays they may also feel pressure to signal their character's virtue, or signpost that something doesn't 100% represent their own beliefs.
But if the character keeps doubting, monologuing, asking whether they're doing the right thing, and then keeps doing the exact same thing anyway, they may read as more annoying than tragic.
Let characters make choices.
Let them believe in those choices.
Let the consequences come when due.
A character who is wrong, but committed, is usually more compelling than a character who spends every scene explaining that they know they could be wrong.
