Character Theory (Un)typical characters and their popularity

[kevintheradioguy]

So... I don't know what exactly I want to bring up in this thread. Some sort of archetypes versus originality thing, perhaps. Let's see if I can describe my concern correctly.

I see the prevailing majority of people sticking to and choosing from quite typical... no, even stereotypical characters. If there's a giant man, he's a big softie, and a cuddle bear to his friends, not to mention low intelligence. If there's a gay bottom, he's always a feminine, clumsy, cure, always-blushing character. If there's a mage, she's always fragile and thin. Most women are big-eyed bimbos with DD-sized breast. The personalities are easily guessable as well. And, hey, having a type to play; a "perfect self" to represent, or just a recognisable character to roleplay is a thing that deserves recognition.

But! There are also certain "gems", a very unusual characters, that do not follow a typical ark, have typical looks, or typical personalities. And one would think they're the most popular, as they are what they are - unique gems among hundreds of cookie-cutter chars. But thing is, they're not. Those that do not follow the common frame, are often ignored, and it breaks my heart to find a profile of a unique character, and ask the player if they're willing to come up with something only to hear they're no roleplaying, as for years no one had shown any interest in their char... and this happens much more often than one can imagine.

Spoiler: personal example, and yes, I just want to complain a little about it

Latest instance of my own, I uploaded this ad to another website, and was approached by someone who, based by the "MEN" line, assumed I would be playing a feminine character, a younger one, and a submissive romantic.
"Dude." - I said. - "Have you even read my character's profile? He's a dominant, mid-30s, gay top who isn't overly sexually or romantically active."
"Oh." - He replied. - "I just assume, since you're looking for manly men, you want to play him as a sumbissive 13-year-old boy..." (which is sick, btw, in my personal opinion)
And this happens an awful lot.

My main character is a rather aggressive and sarcastic guy, who doesn't really show the better part, because he might just lack it. This goes from me liking to RP bloodline, and his comes from efreeti spirits, which I want to include into his nature. But people are scared of this! The number of times I got a reply "I want the other character to be nice" astonishes me! Why? Don't you want dynamics? Development?

Another thing in this box - the moment you hint your character doesn't find a female co-player attractive, they just disappear saying "Well, it seems we don't click" (I never met the same with male characters, but assume this exists as well). Again, why? Is your character so shallow that looks is the only thing you're confident at? And I just crushed your confidence for not liking busty lollipops? Are you only looking for those who would kiss your feet and praise your extravagant (not) beauty? How about someone who will learn to love you for your personality, intelligence, emotions, and overcome the initial disinterest?

So the question is... would you prefer to play as/with an archetype you and everyone around knows and make things easier, or something more complex/unusual/unique? And why do you think so many shun from thought-out, complex characters?

 

[rae2nerdy]

Do you mean female co-character? I read that bit as them not finding the player themselves attractive which is kind of break the fourth-wall-y.

I think those kind of roleplays are sort of like reading a harlequin romance. You do not read those for the plot or even the characters. You read those kind of books because you like the idealized fantasy of "dark broody rogue falls in love and is tamed by the love of the lily white lady."

If you're looking for something with a bit more depth than I would steer clear of those kind of roleplays.

A good way to see if that's what your dealing with is if the plot can basically be summed up as - Lady A falls in love with Man B.

As for the cliche versus original character I suppose that depends on what kind of roleplays your doing in general. I personally prefer world building to character creation. My roleplays are usually very indepth when it comes to setting but the characters tend to be more afterthoughts.

So I just put something together that doesn't require as much brain power. Now that being the case if my partner wants to make their character unique I don't care. I am just usually so drained by the time I'm done with setting that I just don't have it in me to make a well-rounded character too.

 

[kevintheradioguy]

Do you mean female co-character? I read that bit as them not finding the player themselves attractive which is kind of break the fourth-wall-y.

Not sure what you meant by that one. The whole thing, or just one look-wise example? Care to elaborate?

Overall, I didn't mean that as concerning only female characters. The example I made about the looks is the one I stumble over very often. It goes like this: someone asks for a RP with me; I agree; we start RPing; everything goes well; my (male) character thinks that he doesn't find their )female) character physically appealing*; the player writes me with "he doesn't think she's attractive, so i won't play any more".

And usually, it's not even romance RPs, as I rarely go for those, being a manly man that I am (not). It's usually adventure or detective ones, but as soon as I write "Brandywine knew most people would find her attractive with that thin waist of hers, and large cleavage, and hair of shining gold; but as much as he understood that, he knew this wasn't his type. Too curvy. Too feminine. Too elegant. He was a simpler man, and liked simpler looks.", it's the end of the game. And it's kind of... sexist, I guess? That some girl created a female character, and the only thing she thinks giver her character worth, is her physical looks**.



*well, when your character likes flat, tomboyish battlemaidens, and you're given a busty blond sex model, it's obvious he won't find her looks particularly appealing, but I hope for them to glow together, because they like their personality.
**I currently have an opposite game: I play as a cubbystrong goblin in his 40ish, and my partner is a 20-somenthing busty blond bimbo. Both are disgusted by each other, as my greenskin looks like a fat monkeylizard to her, and she - as a lumpy swollen bald cat to him, but they kind of start to feel attraction, because they've been through a lot, and learned much about each other, a-a-and start understanding that respective personalities are attractive to them.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I mean for instance

Geeking Out ( the player ) is playing Mary Sue ( the character ).

Did you mean when your character says Mary Sue is ugly , Geeking Out gets offended?

Because the way it read to me was that your character says Geeking Out is ugly and Geeking Out gets offended.

Which is why I said it's kind of fourth wall breaking. Because how would your character know what the player (Geeking Out) looks like?

And I think you misunderstood me.

I meant that the people who put emphasis on their characters appearances are typically interested in shallow stories. Like a harlequin romance where the plot / characters are secondary to Male Character Finding Female Character Attractive / Desirable / Marriage Worthy ( if we're going like old school harlequins ).

Now this is easiest to spot in pure pairing based roleplays where the plot is literally Female Character A falls in love with Male Character B.

But basically anytime someone puts more emphasis on the characters getting together / the way they look than an actual plot they're pretty much only after a shallow story.

And it becomes pretty easy to distinguish these people once you get a feel for them.

For instance I rarely describe my characters. I either get a picture or I'll do a short overview. And sometimes I forget to do even that to the point my partner has to be like -- so um what does your character look like again? I want my character to describe them in their post.

my description : My character is curvy, athletic, red hair, freckles, and green eyes.

It's not a whole lot to go on because character description isn't a huge thing for me. If your character were to call my character some fat ugly ginger I wouldn't care and I would have my character react in whatever way fit her personality.

Now there are some people that go a bit more indepth in their description because they want to give you a solid visual of their characters.

Deeper Description : My character is short with curves and an athletic build. She has freckles across her face and shoulders. Her hair is a curly mess that she irons into submission daily. It's a rich auburn that offsets her forest green eyes. Her fashion tends towards flowy dresses and floral prints.

This lets you know the player cares about the characters appearances but doesn't use any sort of indicator on whether that character is meant to be seen as beautiful/desirable by other characters.

Vain Description : My character has curly red hair that she straightens into waves of auburn every day. Her forest green eyes sit on a button nose over artful freckles. She has curves in all the right places and loves girly clothes with floral touches. She might be an odd duck among the blonde beauties of X but she still has the ability to turn heads.

Now here you can see the person indicates specifically they want their character to be seen as beautiful. They want them to stand out from other females and turn heads. If you see this description it doesn't matter if romance is a central part of the roleplay or not. That player wants their character to get with your character romantically.

 

[Imaginarium]

One word mate: "Projection"

A lot of people tend to project themselves into a character and will take any offense personally. Not in the direct sense, since you're not actually writing about them. However, roleplaying is a means of escape from real life for a lot of people. Not everyone's in it for the sake of writing stories they'd like to read. A lot of people write to live the lives they wish they had. I find this is particularly prevalent in the category of "slice of life" roleplays. They imagine a characters they wish they could be and when that character doesn't get the desired effect, they lose interest and stop playing.

 

[Idea]

Well, where do I even begin answering that...

I guess the first matter to take into account is unique does not equal good. In fact, unique doesn't even really mean unique, in a sense. What I mean by that is that we categorize ideas , it's just human nature, and we do it so much you can pretty much describe anyone as an archetype. When someone makes a supposedly "original" character, that character is for one based on their own experiences and therefore at least inspired by those, derivative, and for two only found to be original due to the lack of exposure of people to that archetype. In short, originality is a matter of the order in which people are exposed to things, at least if we're talking broad strokes where the idea of an archetype actually can apply.

For that reason it would be wrong to assume original is always better. In fact it's way easier for the "original" content to be crappy because by definition the creator cannot have been exposed to it as much (or they wouldn't think it original). Nonetheless I still prefer original content over archetypical one, depending on the roleplay (when I participate in a harem rolepaly, for instance, I kinda hope the characters are placed I different archetypes because that is part of the feel of the roleplay, but generally I prefer the content to be original). However, more than originality, I want purpose and depth. That goes for when I make characters and when I deal with other characters. More than a character being independent from things I've seen before , I want the character to go deep into it's own arc and to explore it's themes and interact with the other characters in ways that are satisfying.

There is a ton more I could say, but we would be hear for a long time. This is a very broad topic, so I will end with my solution to the matter I raised before. How can one make original content? Well, it's by exploring non-original content from a different angle. With more depth. But that can't be done if one is looking at things in terms of tropes and archetypes.




As a side note I would like to quickly address something you said "I want the character to be nice" somehow translated to that person not wanting dynamics or development. This view is, in my opinion, a very shallow outlook on development and dynamics. Characters don't need to be assholes to have dynamics and development, and in many cases the character a lack of basic courtesy simply leads a to the death of the plot. A character that isn't nice has also, in mine and certainly many other roleplayer's experiences, proven to be prone to becoming a stalling character, who needs to be constantly pushed, convineced and so on to actively participate in the plot. Lastly, it just feels kinda awful to have your hardworked creation be the target of mistreatment on a constant basis unless you designed them for that.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Imaginarium thank you you hit what I was trying to say on the head. I think a lot of times it is about projection. People put themselves into the character ( whether conciously or subconciously ) and thus they get offended if that character is seen in a less than pleasant light.

It doesn't even have to be about romance specifically it's just - you don't think my avatar is as awesome as I intended them to be than why would I roleplay?

I find this to be common in romance personally but then I do 1x1 where Romance is like a solid 80% of all roleplays. But I can see this being a problem in slice of life as well.

 

[kevintheradioguy]

Geeking Out ( the player ) is playing Mary Sue ( the character ).

Did you mean when your character says Mary Sue is ugly , Geeking Out gets offended?

Yeah, that's what I meant. I re-read my initial post, thought, and couldn't find where you thought I say Geeking Out if ugly.
It's like this "Geeking Out thinks Mary Sue is beutiful. Kevintheradioguy's character says Mary Sue is not his type. Geeking Out gets offended and ends the RP."

Now here you can see the person indicates specifically they want their character to be seen as beautiful. They want them to stand out from other females and turn heads. If you see this description it doesn't matter if romance is a central part of the roleplay or not. That player wants their character to get with your character romantically.

This... is actually a pretty good point! I'm still taking two offences: why the person thinks that looks is the only thing romance is based off, I mean, heck, I had plenty romances in real life, little GFs I adored were physically my thing... but I loved them for something else.
Second offence: that is kind of playing for the other person. Deciding what the other person likes. One of my main characters likes manly-looking girls. Strong, flat-chested, tomboyish, heavy jaw, short hair, little to none make-up. His tastes aren't lying in beautiful people, his tastes lie in rough, gender-neutral people. To me, that is "how dare you dictade what my OC I spent five years with, likes and doesn't like?".

But still, this went into a wrong direction with just the typical bimbo looks. I was originally, ahem, asking about a bigger picture XD like "Why people prefer to play as and with simple archetype like Hermione Granger, and not a complex and deep character like Rodion Raskolnikov, and which would you prefer?"

I guess the first matter to take into account is unique does not equal good. In fact, unique doesn't even really mean unique, in a sense.

Oh, I never said they were. There are plenty characters that are unusual, in a way, but I wouldn't play with them (tried once, it was... weird). It's more like Hermione vs Raskolnikov up there. Hermione is a simple type of character we see hundreds... no, thousands, if not millions of. Book-smart, honest person, better in most things than anyone else, loyal friend, and such. Raskolnikov is complex, his morale and actions are controversial, he thinks he's a good man, and everyone does, he did everything for the greater good (in his head), and it is corrupting him. And this is wa-a-ay more interesting to play with, and see his dynamics, rather then Hermione's. And it confuses me to see most prefer Hermone over Raskolnikov.

It doesn't even have to be about romance specifically it's just - you don't think my avatar is as awesome as I intended them to be than why would I roleplay?

I find this to be common in romance personally but then I do 1x1 where Romance is like a solid 80% of all roleplays. But I can see this being a problem in slice of life as well.

A-ha-h-a-ha-hga! XD on, gee, PM me XD

 

[rae2nerdy]

Yeah, that's what I meant. I re-read my initial post, thought, and couldn't find where you thought I say Geeking Out if ugly.
It's like this "Geeking Out thinks Mary Sue is beutiful. Kevintheradioguy's character says Mary Sue is not his type. Geeking Out gets offended and ends the RP."


This... is actually a pretty good point! I'm still taking two offences: why the person thinks that looks is the only thing romance is based off, I mean, heck, I had plenty romances in real life, little GFs I adored were physically my thing... but I loved them for something else.
Second offence: that is kind of playing for the other person. Deciding what the other person likes. One of my main characters likes manly-looking girls. Strong, flat-chested, tomboyish, heavy jaw, short hair, little to none make-up. His tastes aren't lying in beautiful people, his tastes lie in rough, gender-neutral people. To me, that is "how dare you dictade what my OC I spent five years with, likes and doesn't like?".

But still, this went into a wrong direction with just the typical bimbo looks. I was originally, ahem, asking about a bigger picture XD like "Why people prefer to play as and with simple archetype like Hermione Granger, and not a complex and deep character like Rodion Raskolnikov, and which would you prefer?"



Oh, I never said they were. There are plenty characters that are unusual, in a way, but I wouldn't play with them (tried once, it was... weird). It's more like Hermione vs Raskolnikov up there. Hermione is a simple type of character we see hundreds... no, thousands, if not millions of. Book-smart, honest person, better in most things than anyone else, loyal friend, and such. Raskolnikov is complex, his morale and actions are controversial, he thinks he's a good man, and everyone does, he did everything for the greater good (in his head), and it is corrupting him. And this is wa-a-ay more interesting to play with, and see his dynamics, rather then Hermione's. And it confuses me to see most prefer Hermone over Raskolnikov.



A-ha-h-a-ha-hga! XD on, gee, PM me XD

Another thing in this box - the moment you hint your character doesn't find a female co-player attractive,

The bold part. Co-Player to me means - the player you are writing with NOT the character that player is writing for.

No I got what you were trying to say I was just letting you know - if you learn to pick up written cues you'll save yourself a headache down the road. Trust me I do enough 1x1s that I can tell pretty much immediately when I'm dealing with a case or projection as Imaginarium put it. It's actually really easy.

You have to pay attention to HOW someone describes their character. And what part of the plotting process their actual interested in. But mostly if they are using words that indicate specifically how their character is meant to be percieved AND THEY'RE ALL POSITIVE than you're dealing with projection.

As to the type of characters I am a die hard harry potter fan so Hermione Granger was probably not the example to use on me. I will die on that hill my friend.

But I do understand what your trying to say and on this I will agree with Idea to an extent. I don't think having a cliche'd or unique character is important so much as how that character fits into the story you want to tell.

As I indicated in my first post. I care far more about world building / setting / plot than I do about characters. They are typically like the final component I add to a roleplay and are typically only created so I can play in the world I created.

Now that isn't to say I don't do some character driven plots but even then I don't care if the character is cliche'd or unique or whatever. I care that the character is well written and interesting to play with.

Using your example : Say we start with Hermione, the bookish girl whose loyal to her friends and always tries to do the right thing. We put her in a storyline where there are wizards going around kidnapping muggleborns and binding them to pureblood wizards as living power ups.

Okay in this world you're going to see Hermione have to adapt to being basically a living battery. You can keep the core traits : bookish/loyal/tries to do the right thing. But you aren't going to have her running to a library and acting like a no-it-all all the time. At least not over a long period of time. You're going to have to see her use her best traits to try to figure out a way to free herself and others.

So you're taking a fairly "cliche" character and you're expanding on that. You're giving it depth through the experience that person is facing.

I think a character is honestly only as good as the amount of effort you put into making them standout. If you aren't focused on the characters standing out and instead using them to move through the world than having vague characters is fine. If the whole plot revolves around the characters interacting with circumstance than yeah you're going to need to make them more indepth. But that doesn't mean you have to like play subversive games with tropes or what not.


Heck let's use an even more common example.

- Spineless pretty girl used to being rescued by strong men ends up in a place where she is considered ugly and unwelcome. For someone's whose entire identity is predicated on other people finding them attractive that would be a REALLY INTERESTING storyline. How does the person cope with not being fawned over and having to realize there is more to beauty than the physical. If someone is willing to stick to it that cliche'd character could actually work really well.

But again the person has to be willing to flesh out the character. Even if they are cliche'd that doesn't mean can't have depth. The same way making a super unique character doesn't mean they will have depth. Look at any edgelord hybrid monstrocity to see the truth in that. A character isn't interesting because of a series of traits. A character is interesting because the player is willing to tell an interesting story with them.

 

[kevintheradioguy]

Another thing in this box - the moment you hint your character doesn't find a female co-player attractive,

Yes, my mistake. I mean co-.........chatracter? I'm not sure how to say that correctly.

And, you know, it's not like your point of view is wrong, but I never ever met anyone who describes the character in such detail. That would start the alarms in my head. But I never met people who'd describe their characters in such detail. It's usually height, body shape, hair color and style, colour of the eyes, breast size, and face reference for me. *waits for some compassion* If everyone would be like that in their descriptions, that would be way more easier.

...but I think this needs another "Character's looks" thread, no?

But again the person has to be willing to flesh out the character. Even if they are cliche'd that doesn't mean can't have depth. The same way making a super unique character doesn't mean they will have depth. Look at any edgelord hybrid monstrocity to see the truth in that. A character isn't interesting because of a series of traits. A character is interesting because the player is willing to tell an interesting story with them.

Fully agree.

 

[Idea]

Oh, I never said they were. There are plenty characters that are unusual, in a way, but I wouldn't play with them (tried once, it was... weird). It's more like Hermione vs Raskolnikov up there. Hermione is a simple type of character we see hundreds... no, thousands, if not millions of. Book-smart, honest person, better in most things than anyone else, loyal friend, and such. Raskolnikov is complex, his morale and actions are controversial, he thinks he's a good man, and everyone does, he did everything for the greater good (in his head), and it is corrupting him. And this is wa-a-ay more interesting to play with, and see his dynamics, rather then Hermione's. And it confuses me to see most prefer Hermone over Raskolnikov.

Well, if I had to give a single reason for that (and mind you there absolutely isn't just one reason, but many), I would say it's because RP is a cooperative medium. When you play a character you want others to see you as good and someone who will work alongside other people not against them. In any genre of roleplaying one common trend is that many players are afraid to be left behind. So doing things which would leave them uncoomfortable, playing a character that isn't great at anything, being uncooperative are all traits which players have a harder time wrapping their head around doing, heck even when they make a character like that they often will not behave accordingly when IC.

The unfortunate truth is though, a lot of the times this fear is actually kind of justified. It's not just what a player does with their own character that they avoid stepping out of their comfort zone, but many players and especially many GMs have a frankly remarkable lack of flexibility. In fact, I myself am way more rigid than I probably should, even if in my case it's not for lack of trying to be flexible. With the exception of open-world RPs which generally just don't give a fuck about what anyone does, many roleplays simply can't conceive of characters that are marginally to the side of their expectations. For instance, I am quite a fan of playing child characters. However, there is a staggering low amount of RPs that allow it, even if plot-wise nothing would stop it. Even if the dynamics thus created could greatly expand the horizons of what the RP can explore or make a unique addition to the group bringing new sides of the other characters to light. And don't get me started on the difficulty players seem to have in keeping up the most basic of interactions, dialogue.

That said, again, you're being biased there. I know it was just an example, but controversial actions are not more interesting to play with. Nor are they any less. It's a matter of the angle by which it is approached. For instance, let me introduce ya to Shirou Emyia.
Shirou Emyia is one of the most cookie-cutter characters you will probably find. He's a selfless, kind guy and his dream is to be a hero of justice. He hates needless violence, but will stand up and fight for his friends and his ideals even if it means getting himself killed. He wants to save everyone and leave no one to cry. If that sounds familiar, it's because this is hero archetype 101.
However, giving some minor spoilers, the aniem this character comes from then goes on to twist that around, not by making him fail or become corrupted, but by showing where that leads when he is SUCCESSFUL. And by God, it was brilliant. I kinda wrote myself into a corner right now because I don't want to throw a bunch of spoilers in here, but long story short the anime basically ends up showing how, in the context of the real world, his ideals are fundamentally impossible and thus can only lead to despair and disaster. That even if you somehow figure put what the right thing is, you may not be able to keep it up.
And here is the real important bit about what I just said: This whole thing, this whole deal that makes his character so damm interesting to explore is only possible BECAUSE he had that kind of cookie-cutter persona. Because despite being good and kind, the author took what that meant seriously and explored it seriously.

 

[kevintheradioguy]

That said, again, you're being biased there. I know it was just an example, but controversial actions are not more interesting to play with. Nor are they any less. It's a matter of the angle by which it is approached.

Biased, true, I can admit that. However, there's such a thing as a first impression, right? Seeing another funny, sweet-tooth character with dark pre-history, who'd kind to everyone and wields the most powerful magical abilities would make you roll your eyes and go past them, while there might be a real gem player behind them, who'll make the game amazing. But, hiding behind an irritating anime cliche, he'll go unnoticed, lost in hundreds of similar characters. And most of those hundreds aren't any good at all.

I would play with them, if I know the player, and am sure they're not what they look like in a first glance. And it's vice-versa.

At the moment, I'm in an active post-apocalyptic cyberpunk RP, and I get insecurity fits, because my character looks way too OP. He's a criminal of sorts - he professionally makes bodies never found. That's the narrow speciality. Works mostly with local mafia, gets their protection in exchange. An extremely handsome man, has perfect control over his mimics (for reasons too dull to explain), and voice which makes him a perfect actor. Knows too much about human anatomy, butchering tools. Charming, an optimistic nihilist, lots of street knowledge, generally flat emotions, dubious morale in some things, and golden morale at others (as in, seducing a drunk/high person isn't rape, turning human bodies into meat loafs isn't a crime, murder is OK until he doesn't see it happening; but currently he's running after a group of not-right-in-the-head people who killed three teens in cold blood). And i know I wouldn't play with this character myself, because he looks a bit... too much. Good-looking, great actor/liar, pathologist, mafia associate. But the person who knows me, and who's playing with him, is absolutely fine with the character, knowing that behind that OP character is a player, who just wants for both parties to have fun, and can provide that specific guy with what he wants. I never made that character public, but I'm sure most would nope out, because they know the usuals that go with said character.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Yes, my mistake. I mean co-.........chatracter? I'm not sure how to say that correctly.

And, you know, it's not like your point of view is wrong, but I never ever met anyone who describes the character in such detail. That would start the alarms in my head. But I never met people who'd describe their characters in such detail. It's usually height, body shape, hair color and style, colour of the eyes, breast size, and face reference for me. *waits for some compassion* If everyone would be like that in their descriptions, that would be way more easier.

...but I think this needs another "Character's looks" thread, no?


Fully agree.

I would just say - when my character indicates that another character is unattractive their player/my partner gets upset.

Like again I think it's a projection issue. And that's more of a thing you just learn to get a feel for over time. Like I can spot 'em easily but I've been doing this for ten years so it's a lot of just meeting the SAME KIND OF PEOPLE so much that I can spot 'em at fifty paces now.

 

[Idea]

Biased, true, I can admit that. However, there's such a thing as a first impression, right? Seeing another funny, sweet-tooth character with dark pre-history, who'd kind to everyone and wields the most powerful magical abilities would make you roll your eyes and go past them, while there might be a real gem player behind them, who'll make the game amazing. But, hiding behind an irritating anime cliche, he'll go unnoticed, lost in hundreds of similar characters. And most of those hundreds aren't any good at all.

I would play with them, if I know the player, and am sure they're not what they look like in a first glance. And it's vice-versa.

At the moment, I'm in an active post-apocalyptic cyberpunk RP, and I get insecurity fits, because my character looks way too OP. He's a criminal of sorts - he professionally makes bodies never found. That's the narrow speciality. Works mostly with local mafia, gets their protection in exchange. An extremely handsome man, has perfect control over his mimics (for reasons too dull to explain), and voice which makes him a perfect actor. Knows too much about human anatomy, butchering tools. Charming, an optimistic nihilist, lots of street knowledge, generally flat emotions, dubious morale in some things, and golden morale at others (as in, seducing a drunk/high person isn't rape, turning human bodies into meat loafs isn't a crime, murder is OK until he doesn't see it happening; but currently he's running after a group of not-right-in-the-head people who killed three teens in cold blood). And i know I wouldn't play with this character myself, because he looks a bit... too much. Good-looking, great actor/liar, pathologist, mafia associate. But the person who knows me, and who's playing with him, is absolutely fine with the character, knowing that behind that OP character is a player, who just wants for both parties to have fun, and can provide that specific guy with what he wants. I never made that character public, but I'm sure most would nope out, because they know the usuals that go with said character.

I would be lying if I said I am the most trusting guy ever. Even if it's a close friend playing them, I would have issues with someone playing someone OP. Yet indeed it is possible to play one well, even if it's difficult. In fact, one could argue the harder a character is play off right, the more rewarding.

That said, and I realized this point of view of mine isn't shared by a lot of people, I would say that first impressions are really not good indicators, as in the very concept of "generic" is about one of the worst indicators for actual quality. So much good content in all mediums is thrown to the trash simply because it's somehow "been made before", when in fact people don't bother looking at the different angles by which it IS being approached. Sorry if I'm ranting, but as a fan of such things as harem anime I am really saddened by this mentality of "I've seen it before so it sucks now". Just...no! Sure if someone is making the trope just for making the trope, that's a cliché and it's not worth it. But if someone is using a trope while at least trying to put in some fresh take... the amount of people who would throw it away without a second thought is frankly disturbing in my eyes.

 

[Umbrie]

here is a description of my Nyxad Spellcloak who does scouting, map charting, infiltration, reconnaissance, information gathering and rarely assassination.

Umbrie Aniri is a small and pale youth standing at a height of 155 centimeters with black silken hair that falls slightly below her clavicle in a pair of twintails worn from the neck down, her bangs obscuring her right eye as her hair is held in place by cerulean ribbons tied in bows. over her petite torso is an oversized black button-up shirt with a blue bowtie, the sleeves of the shirt hanging past her wrists and obscuring most of her small and gloved hands, a cerulean pleated miniskirt that barely covers her modest fitting lowrise immature undergarments, and a black pair of stockings that stop three quarters of the way up her thighs. giving the slender and firm youth the illusion of being sickly due to a combination of the color of her hair and clothes against her pale skin, including the opaqueness of most of her attire. her black boots are fastened in a series of buckles from ankle to knees, and the small woman peers at you with deep blue eyes, her massive pupils affixed to your pupils as she smiles and giggles in a completely harmless manner that makes her come across as more of an innocent and pure hearted child that just wanted to play than the assassin she truly was. maybe it would seem her motives were indeed quite pure and harmless.

other than dressing like a schoolgirl, specifically a high school student. and lacking much of a figure. she isn't truly a student, as much as she is a fey of warmth and happiness, who does shady work as a means to protect and feed her massive family. and is even an indentured servant to a highly religious roman style theocratic government. she is still a rogue and still the type to sneak behind somebody and slay them with a sharp edge to a vital area.

she is generally quite honest when she is off duty or associating with somebody that isn't her mark, and she often prefers marks she can get away with bringing in alive. because she hates killing others, even if she doesn't understand death due to being a fey and thus unable to experience it the way humans do.

she knows families get upset. and as a Seelie, she doesn't like upsetting innocent families, even if her fey element is the darkness. or the shroud to be precise. though the reason she uses daggers, and stationary items like pencils or scissors, is because that is what she can technically procure because they aren't selling firearms to children. despite the fact she has used and looted the occasional shortbow or pistol off an enemy corpse during battle.

despite hating see others suffer, she even more hates the fact that the only way she knows how to keep her massive family comfortably fed and protected is to put others through pain and suffering. in fact, for the people she has had to assassinate, she generally leaves a bouquet of tailored faux silk roses on the grave. made using her tailoring skills. and her mother intended for her to be a doctor or pharmacist. so she has some medicinal training.

the original trope i based her on was a combination of stepford smiler, childish faerie, tagalong child, and schoolgirl assassin. i get that she is a bit of a cliche. but i wanted to see what spins i could put on those tropes. because everything has been done countless times before, so i wanted to see if i could make the combination interesting, by making a cheerful assassin who doesn't enjoy her job and isn't a psychopath.