Hypothetical Character Flaws

Here’s a concept for you: a hypothetically flawed character. This character, on the surface, is not a perfect person because of their flaws, but in practice it remains to be seen how truly flawed they actually are. I am talking, of course, of “practice” in the context of roleplay, here, but you could make a similar argument for fictional narratives as a whole.

In my head, this how I’m thinking about it. If a character’s ‘goodness’ is the sum of their good traits (Strengths) minus their bad traits (Flaws), you get a character who lands somewhere in the realm of “Good” (More Strengths than Flaws), “Neutral” (Strengths and Flaws roughly equal), or “Bad” (Flaws outweigh the Strengths). Some people might refer to “Bad” as “Evil” if you want to use the DnD scale, but you see where I’m going with this. So let me mess with that formula a little bit.

What about the flaws that we include in that equation but are never actually realized?

I use ‘realized’ here in the way it’s used in business, where something that can happen actually physically takes place (for example: making money). Lots of characters have flaws that can affect the character, but those flaws may either be too big or too specific to actually affect the character. For example, if my character beat his children, yes he’s a horrible person, but in the context of the roleplay, his children probably are no longer in the picture, and it’s just a dark part of his past. Okay, this is an extreme example I’ll admit, but let me scale it back now.

Say one of the major faults of your character is they betray people. That’s a pretty hefty flaw, if you really spend some time with it. You might include something in their history about them cheating on their wife, abandoning a business partner, breaking an important promise, and so on. With some proper attention, you can explain why they do this—they’re broken, they have past pain, they have trust issues, and it keeps going. All of these things are really legitimate building blocks for your character, but they all relate to the history—the past—and not necessarily the present or future.

Here’s where I’m going with this: are you ever going to have an opportunity in your roleplay to betray someone in a meaningful way—and if you have the opportunity, would you take it? The problem with a fault like this is it will kill the plot unless you absolutely plan for it, and most people (both the character’s writer and the recipient writer) don’t actually want to go there. A sin so black as betrayal means ending all your hard work and story-building you’ve done just to walk away. People don’t usually go there. Could you? Definitely. It’s a hypothetical flaw. If you never cash it in, though, it adds very little to your character and doesn’t make them any more actively human.

Some flaws are simply too hard to put into practice. I’ve beaten the “Lone Wolf” stereotype to death in the past, but once again it applies very easily. How well can you apply the flaw of being a loner if roleplay mandates your character be around other characters anyway? If your character’s problem is avarice, and they will damn everyone around them for the gold, how likely are you to cash that in, if it ultimately means forsaking your entire company? Faced with that decision, you (or your character) suddenly rationalizes why in this case it would be especially bad, and you avoid it altogether.

In the things I have as my “Roleplay Standards” I put that “A strong character is flawed on multiple levels”. Well, what are those levels? I think the answer is this: past (history), present (roleplay), and future (potential for roleplay). If your character fails to be flawed on all three of those levels—like every human being is—then they become significantly less believable. This is by no means something that’s easy to do well.

The past and the future are simple enough, because we can think about things in broad strokes. When we plan a character, we’re usually approaching it from the grand-scheme of things as it is. What’s their whole history? How do they act in general? Fit your entire character’s persona into one little sheet. We have to think big picture when conceptualizing a character, and it’s more natural to think about big-picture flaws to go along with that. Ambition (or greed), lack of loyalty, social aversion, depression, manipulation: these things are unappealing in name, but it can be hard to put them into practice when your roleplay scene demands certain things of a character. If your person struggles with depression, they’re probably prone to avoiding people and other forms of contact—and even if they get out, they very well might not be particularly pleasant to be with. See how far that gets you in an RP.

Now don’t get me wrong, those things are really useful for building your characters and adding to them. In fact, they’re critical. But they can’t be all that you have, because you still have other layers to reach. Personally, I’m still exploring what traits will work in the present, and it’s challenging. Things that actively detract from your character without breaking the story are tricky. So far though, I’ve found things like anger or cowardice work really well. They can lock up your character in an instant, but they’re recoverable. Other things like arrogance, stubbornness, and short-sightedness can go a long way too. When used effectively, your character begins to run into obstacles that they make, and suddenly you have a story that’s character driven. Kind of cool, right?

Maybe you would pose the argument, though, that, by definition, functioning members of society are, well, functioning. You don’t think about every person you encounter “Wow, that guy is terrible” even if they really might be. Most people can put on a good face or show and be pretty acceptable in public, so why does it seem like I’m trying to force all square characters into a round hole? Can’t we RP people who are enjoyable to be around and have most of their damage under control?

The answer is you can, but two things will probably happen. 1) You’ll be aiming for “pretty good” guy and the immediate impulse of RP to have everything go according to plan will kick in, and your character becomes a “really good” guy, or dare I even say “perfect”. Following through with flaws requires a very intentional effort. 2) Your roleplay will be very plot-driven and can stagnate really quickly. I mean, if your RP is just to achieve a specific plot or story, and your character becomes this bland, universal device to make that happen, where’s the intrigue? Write me a paragraph about the concept of the story and save me a six-threaded monster that requires length for the sake of length.  

Flawed characters are like exercise. Our relaxed, comfy bodies think it sounds unappealing, but it’s actually invigorating and makes you feel truly alive. Ignore flaws in characters for too long, or stick with only the hypothetical ones, and our writing becomes obese, sluggish, and sedentary.