I've always found that characters become much more memorable because of their flaws than because of their strengths.

Not necessarily huge flaws either.

Sometimes it's something surprisingly small.

For example:

• A brilliant detective who forgets people's names.

• A fearless warrior who's terrible at comforting others.

• A powerful mage who's incredibly impatient.

• A charismatic leader who can't make personal decisions.

Those imperfections usually make characters feel much more human.

What's your favorite character flaw you've written (or read) that made someone feel more believable?

Recently, I came up with a character design that I'm actually really proud of. It made me want to start developing a game with my friend, who's really into programming and all the technical stuff. The idea is that she'd handle the programming while I'd do the art and character design. While brainstorming, I started thinking that this character could work really well as the game's protagonist. Personality-wise, she'd be somewhat similar to Kirby (and Gon).

I'd love to hear your honest opinions. Do you think she works visually as a main character? Is her design memorable enough?

​

I've noticed that a character's habits often reveal more than a long description ever could.

For example:

• A king who always eats with the servants first.
• A detective who keeps every failed case in a locked drawer.
• A mage who apologizes before casting destructive spells.
• A pirate who secretly feeds stray animals in every port.

They're small details, but they instantly make characters feel more human.

What's one habit you've given a character (or seen in fiction) that made them unforgettable?

I’ve been thinking a lot about a question that sits somewhere between AI, HCI, robotics, and character design:

Can people feel genuine sympathy for something that is clearly artificial, rather than human-passing?

What interests me is not whether AI can perfectly imitate a human face or fool someone into thinking it is real. I’m actually more interested in the opposite case: a being that is obviously constructed, obviously synthetic, maybe even visibly robotic, and yet still feels socially legible, emotionally readable, or strangely sympathetic.

My intuition is that human connection may not depend entirely on realism. It may depend just as much on coherence. If something has a stable presence, recognizable traits, consistent behavior, and a believable “way of being,” people may start responding to it as more than just an object or visual output.

That raises a few questions for me:

• Do humans need human likeness in order to feel sympathy?
• Can obvious artificiality still feel approachable rather than alienating?
• Does consistency across different contexts make an artificial character feel more like “someone”?
• Where do you think the line is between tool, character, and presence?

I’m curious how people here think about this, especially from the perspective of AI, social robotics, digital identity, or interface design.

Is emotional sympathy toward something clearly artificial a dead end, or do you think obvious artificiality can sometimes work better than imperfect human imitation?

I've seen the term used a lot by characters that suffer a lot in their own media. And I wanted to know where that term came from. As well as what characters parallel that argument, which made the nomenclature so widely used.

Hello everyone (sorry for the bad english in advance).

My question is basically in the title: what do you think about protagonists (not just characters) that are unrelatable and/or unlikable?
Like, I think it's easier to write a secondary character who appears once in a while or an antagonist with awful traits, but what about protagonists who are always on the scene?
And I'm not talking about characters that are written in a way to make them appear good to the reader/viewer/player or that redeem themselves, I'm talking about characters who are actually annoying and/or horrible people, but they are part of the main cast and their presence makes the reader/viewer/player go "F*** this character".
Have you ever dealt with something like this? Do you think it's difficult to achieve?

I'd like some advice on what I can say to him. Sorry if this isn't the right place for it. If it isn't, I'd appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

He's said multiple times that he's afraid that people will send him death threats if he ever confirms that his characters are straight. He mentions that the creator of MHA, Horikoshi, was harassed and even received death threats for not making gay ships canon, and he's afraid that the same thing will happen to him.

Personally, I thought this anxiety over making characters straight was a bit... absured for lack of a better word. The media has been comprised of almost exclusively straight characters for decades without any creators receiving backlash and I feel one is more likely to receive backlash for creating gay characters than straight ones. But when I tried to explain this to him, he became upset and felt like his feelings were being brushed off as invalid.

How I was going to go about this is that there people that are about to die if my character doesn't save them, but if they go to save them, the person lets the villain who wronged them get away. So, they have to make a choice to either take their revenge or save their lives.

What I was going for is to go against the standard "the hero will be just as bad as the villain if they kill the villain" and more for something that goes along the lines of, "The hero will be just as bad as the villain if they prioritize their obsession and desire more than doing what is right"

What do you guys think? Do you have an alternative?

To set a hypothetical scenario, my character "Goroth" is a human-esque character that eats people. He disguises himself as other people to lure them in for capture. And his body can regenerate from any wound, making him neigh immortal.

Do you find him creepier if he enjoyed the process of luring or devouring his victims. Or is he any more creepy if he's doing it purely for survival. he's just as evil regardless of what option you pick. So what option do you think would provide the creepier character?

In the genre of lit that I like, “weird girl lit,” the main character is often a woman with some sort of emotional, dark, unhinged, even violent behavior.

It makes me wonder whether she is still the protagonist? Is she also the antagonist at the same time? Or are all of the people opposing her throughout the story, her antagonists? (Even if those people are good people).

I learned in school that protagonist is good/hero and antagonist is bad/villains so now my head is in a scramble 😆

I’m just a reader, but Reddit suggested I ask here.

Does a villain have to have a logical motive?

I always find that tiny habits make characters feel much more real than giant personality traits.

For example:

• A detective always counts the stairs without realizing it.

• A queen always straightens crooked objects while talking.

• A warrior instinctively sits facing the door.

• A wizard always talks to animals even when nobody is around.

None of these affect the plot much, but they instantly make a character feel more believable.

What's one small habit you've given a character that readers probably wouldn't forget?

There was this guy at my school who was incredibly annoying; he was definitely the worst person I've ever met.That's why I thought of using him as inspiration to create an antagonist in my story, but it turns out that in the end reality surpassed fiction.The boy I don't like, let's call him Romeo even though that's not his real name, and the character I invented based on him is called Mathew Romeo and Mathew are very similar; they are both arrogant, look down on others, have no respect for anything or anyone, and are unwilling to change.Let's suppose the two of them have done something very bad, like stealing money from their classmates' backpacks while no one is looking, and in the end they get caught.Those in this situation act differently when confronted; when they catch Romeo, he says nothing, he just lowers his head and remains silent like a coward.Just a moment ago he was laughing, saying "hahaha, I've stolen backpacks, you're such losers, you lack street smarts," but then he shows he's a coward.But when she finally speaks, she justifies herself by playing the victim, saying, "Oh, oh, my family is poor and we needed the money because there's no food at home."When in reality it's a lie, he doesn't really care much about his family; he spends all day out smoking and drinking, spending the money he stole on vices.However, when Mathew is caught openly stealing backpacks, he says he doesn't care and tries to justify himself in a way that isn't victim-playing because he's too proud for that.The moment you set limits for both of them and tell them that it would be better if they changed their attitude, well Romeo lies, saying it's true he should change for the sake of his friends and family, but then that doesn't happen, not even as a joke.But Mathew openly says he's not going to change his attitude because he's the fucking boss, and he says everyone should change their attitude.In conclusion, Romeo is worse than Mathew because he's a victim rat, and at least Mathew has more self-confidence.

I’m writing a character who faces this exact situation.

He’s 13, analytical, and not exactly morally “pure.”

The choice:

Save a family member → live with guilt

Save a stranger → lose someone you love

I’m trying to explore a more realistic, morally gray reaction rather than a “heroic” one.

What do you think most people would actually choose?

And more importantly — what would you choose?

I need some guidance here. I like to design cartoon monster characters, but 99% of them don't have names bcuz I am literally incapable of thinking of one. When trying to find names, I try to make it fit with the character by making it convey things such as their environment, personality, appearance, OR something else.

In fact I have a story that's been building in my head for YEARS and im trying to get it out onto paper. And while I can design the characters I have in mind, I extremely struggle with finding the right name for them. Meanwhile, I see COUNTLESS ppl share many of their OCs and they don't seem to have trouble with names. I just wish I could harness that power.

As you may not have clocked, I care VERY MUCH about my OCs, whenever I draw one my brain automatically comes up with a story for them instantly. (I can't help it, I'm a natural-born writer)

Could the problem be that I'm trying to hard? And I should just think more simple? Or do I need to expose myself to more ideas to exercise my mind?

How did YOU come up with the name for one of your characters?

Love yourself because I am proud of you. 💖

I'm working on a fantasy novel and have currently settled on 13 plot-bearing characters. They aren't intended to be equally important: some are primary protagonists/antagonists, others are decoy protagonists/antagonists, mentors, major supporting characters, victims, or characters whose importance becomes much greater later in the story.

I'm curious what first impressions you get from this cast without knowing the story behind them. What kind of story would you expect from these characters? Which characters immediately stand out to you, and what relationships or conflicts would you expect between them?

The 13 plot-bearing characters

Nihil — the central supernatural figure.

Konrad Kann — primary human protagonist; teacher and owner of a school for swordsmanship and magic; is an orphan and has a twin sister.

Karina Kann / later Löwenherz — primary human antagonist; Konrad's twin sister and court sorceress of the Duchy of Löwenherz.

Alina Löwenherz — decoy protagonist, but majorly important; Elisabeth's and Leopold's daughter; Karina's student in magic.

Leopold Löwenherz — decoy antagonist, but majorly important; Duke and Elisabeth's husband.

Lucaris Aporian — an important contrast to Nihil and an anomaly of the world.

Willibald Eberhart — wandering knight, surrogate father and mentor to Konrad.

Elisabeth Löwenherz, née Greifenkraft — princess and, as Leopold's wife, duchess; Leopold's political wife and a murder victim.

Magdalena Holzinger — teacher and employee at Konrad's school; Konrad's friend and later wife, and a murder victim.

Max & Moritz Löwenherz — Leopold and Elisabeth's twin sons; students at Konrad's school.

Sophia Kann — daughter of Konrad and Nihil while Nihil inhabits Alina's body; one of the central outcomes of the story and important sequel bait.

Carl Kuhl — son of Karina and Leopold; also sequel bait. He deliberately rejects his father's surname, Löwenherz, and instead uses Kuhl.

Relevant identities

• Nihil → Avatar of Nothing — its true nature
• Nihil → Genesis — the name Nihil uses for the whole of Creation; Genesis is not a separate identity
• Nihil — has no surname, named itself for no reason
• Lucaris Aporian → First Aporia — a living being without a soul
• Konrad Kann → Darno Kuhl — alias
• Karina Kann/Löwenherz → Anira Kuhl — alias

Irrelevant identities / name jokes

• Lucaris → LUCA → ACUL → DRACULA
• Lucaris → LUCI → LUCIFER → FER → REF → REFEREE
• Lucaris → RI → IR → IRR → IRRER → IRRTUM

I'm deliberately not giving much additional context because I'm interested in what you can infer from the character list alone.

What kind of story would you expect from this cast? Which characters immediately stand out to you, and what relationships, conflicts, or twists would you expect based solely on these descriptions?

Do you feel like you have a character you really like but honestly don't know what to do with them?

Mine's a prince who has this complicated relationship with his position. He recognizes that he is the future of his kingdom and that one day it will be his job to guide and protect the people but he also resents the fact that his entire life was planned out before he was born. So his attitude swings between 'I must protect my people' to 'burn it all, why should I care?'

The idea that chrissy could snap and collapse into himself has always been a thing since I first made him in 2025. So tell me, did I do a good job?

Lately I've been working on making sure chrissy doesn't come across as an annoying Overpowered OC. Main reason is for plot. If an oc is too overpowered there wouldn't be any conflict. Demons can now have an advantage over chrissy if they get to him and activate his human mode. I added another ability that only made sense for chrissy to have which is camouflage, its a mix of high tech and nature so why not?

I’m (planning on) making a game where the final boss is quite literally unbeatable, as he can easily jump between dimensions and time. Attempting to find ways to 1: make him feel powerful in a scarier way and 2: making it not annoying to fight him/at least not too annoying is very difficult, so I’ve come here for ideas.

First time using this subreddit so idk if this fits here

Yo!

It's Dubu.

Straight to the point.

Writers and readers, what type of protagonist do you enjoy the most?

The typical "never give up" hero? Or someone completely different?

I've been thinking about protagonists who are more like observers than heroes.

I recently started reading Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint (ORV), and it got me thinking about how lonely it must be to always be the one watching.

That gave me an idea.

My protagonist is basically an observer.

He tries to stay unnoticed, but the world keeps dragging him into the spotlight.

Then the moment he actually wants to be seen... reality itself starts erasing his identity.

Weird? Yeah.

But I honestly think it's a fun concept.

Would you read a story with an MC like that? Why or why not?

Also, what kind of protagonists do you like writing or reading?

First thing I wanna start off by saying..is that claiming a character didn't "earn" their character growth and development is one of the dumbest and arguably most media literacy thing ever.

Character development and growth is not something you earn like it's some reward but it's something you, as a human, have to make the decision and choice to do so and anyone can choose to better themselves and become a better person no matter how long it takes or how long it'll take for them to he forgiven and whether not you forgive them or not matters cause they're choosing to be better.

But I've come to the conclusion that people do not care about characters growing,developing and taking accountability for their actions cause that will not or ever be enough for certain people and it's pretty obvious they just want said character to grovel and cry and constantly apologize with snot and tears running down their eyes as they get tortured or they just want other characters to read them their flaws and mistakes like it's a family guy cutaway gag.

It feels like people don't think there's any other way for characters to be held accountable unless they die or whatever and that's kind of a middle finger to the idea of redemption and becoming a better person in general cause it's very obvious you're mainly projecting your hate onto this character and are so petty that you're refusing to acknowledge their arc and growth and development and just want to hate.

You don't have to like the character but refusing to even acknowledge their arc cause "oh they didn't die or get all their flaws called out to them in the way I want" or some shit is extremely Petty and even kinda childish.

This is mainly why Discussing Bakugou is impossible cause so many people act like his arc and development doesn't matter at all and don't think it counts at all or in general cause he didn't get brutalized when he realized his ego was wrong as the story went on and he actively became less arrogant and cocky and stubborn.

His flaws literally lead to him getting captured by villains and even now as a pro hero,his stubborn nature and hot-headed demeanor is what caused him to go from N4 hero to like N15 and he even struggles to get people to come to his agency csuse he's such a hot-headed mess.

But cause he didn't get brutalized and bloody and beat up and cause all the 1A kids don't read his flaws like a book continously that suddenly means his arc doesn't matter.

Endeavor from the same series is kinda controversial and you can hate the character if you want but the way there are people who act like he didn't take accountability for his behavior and choices and mistakes is kinda annoying.

He constantly apologized, has promised to get better and does get better,has made it clear that he doesn't want anyone to forgive him and has also made it clear that he's trying to atone for everything he's done even if it means he dies and has taken himself out of the picture by moving his family into a new home while he stays in the old one.

Natsuo is never villianized or hated for not forgiving him and Shoto has more or less grown out of his influence and Enji was hated by the public and suffered massive burns across his body and even lost his arm and many more..I dunno what more y'all want from him and for him at this point except maybe death.

Stolas from Helluva Boss fits this post mainly cause it feels like people just either ignore his growth or wants to act like the growth he has doesn't matter at all cause it doesn't work the way they want.

Not even saying you have to like him as a character but acting like he didn't suffer consequences for his behavior(he literally lost his status,his home,his wealth, his daughter doesn't fuck with him)and he basically took accountability for his behavior.

He literally said he made all these choices and takes full accountability for his actions and choices and the entire point is that he didn't know how his wealth and words came off to others like Blitz because he has had no control over his childhood and overall life and he was stuck in a abusive marriage as a Gay man with a wife who hated his guts and openly talked shit about him.

The entire point was that Blitz and Stolas did love each other but due to their flaws and trauma, they made things much more difficult and worse for each other but they're learning of their flaws and mistakes and becoming better people and growing and developing.

They're going through something called a character arc.

Another example is Charlie from Hazbin Hotel and people act like she didn't take accountability for her flaws and mistakes when..she did?

Like she explictly says how she treated Vaggi was wrong and is gonna be better and she actually talked with her about it.

Also she was unfortunately spiraling cause she was dealing with harassment, bullying, and a bunch of other bullshit all while her friend was dead and then she found out her friend was alive and her dream was true but he achieved redemption and it was a ton of crap.

One of the song lyrics in this show was "it starts with sorry but it cannot just end there."

"I learned from Charlie that you must show that you care..mistakes are innate for being human and alive, we fall..we repent,we survive."

Vivziepop is about as subtle as a brick to the skull and people refuse to see it.

Do people actually want characters to take accountability and become better people or not?

Cause it just comes off as people wanting characters to be tortured and mutilated and mocked and hurt as opposed to actually taking accountability and becoming better people.