# How much awesome is too much awesome?



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2013)

I read this post on reddit this morning that I quite liked. It talks about overdoing "awesome" in stories at the cost of depth.

How do you deal with "awesomeness"? How do you know when you've sacrificed depth for awesomeness? It seems like a frailty of our genre. What do you think?



> *snipped by Moderator for lengthy quoting*
> 
> I'm reminded of a story Patrick Rothfuss (fantasy writer) once told during an interview. He had a group of friends who played D&D together. Predictably, everyone designed their characters to be fairly awesome. You had Ulric Strongjaw the knight, and Rothgar Wildwind the barbarian, and Sarena Ravenhair the rogue... etc etc etc.
> So on a whim, Rothfuss made his character the most pathetic and sorry excuse for a hero he possibly could. If I remember right, he created a hunchback with no real skills to speak of.
> ...



http://www.reddit.com/r/writing/comments/1pvxx1/help_avoiding_fanfiction_style_of_writing/


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 5, 2013)

I haven't really put in anything all that spectacularly awesome in my story yet. I do believe that the post you're quoting makes sense though. I believe it's about contrast. If you want to make something awesome you will have to make everything around it less awesome. The more unawesome everything is the more awesome the awesome thing will seem once it's introduced.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 5, 2013)

My rule of thumb for a lot of story elements is "does this interfere with the other elements I want to create?" In the case of awesomeness:

1): Does this interfere with believability? Self-explanatory.

2): Does this interfere with characterization? Part of making someone understandable is to show their weaknesses, and if a character spends all his time being awesome, he'll always have a wall up between him and the reader.

Also, _Patrick Rothfuss_ thinks you shouldn't make your protagonists boring Mary Sues?


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> My rule of thumb for a lot of story elements is "does this interfere with the other elements I want to create?" In the case of awesomeness:
> 
> 1): Does this interfere with believability? Self-explanatory.
> 
> ...



That was well put, nice and tidy. 

It is hard to argue with Patrick Rothfuss. I love that pathetic D&D hero story. I've been toying with a story idea in which the main characters are specifically *not* awesome.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

"Mary Sues" can work just fine. People get too hung up on these sorts of labels, or even on tropes, which is why I never visit TVTropes or other such sites than I think can stifle writing.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> "Mary Sues" can work just fine.



I actually found the concept of Mary Sue hard to grok, I haven't really been subject to much fan fiction. I'd heard the term, of course.

I looked up this Mary Sue quiz in hopes of gaining some knowledge (The Universal Mary Sue Litmus Test). You have a strong argument there about anti-creativity.  I can well imagine this sort of thing stifling your ideas if you find yourself afraid to break these "rules".


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

@Scribble:

I think there are two definitions for "Mary Sue" thrown around. One is author projection onto the character and wish fulfillment; the other appears to be any character who is good at a lot of things and has no significant flaws.

I agree re: creativity, and I'll also add that once you've fallen into the trap of seeing everything in terms of tropes, it is hard to get your mind out of that box, and so considerations of tropes are necessarily going to affect your writing. I don't think that's a good thing, on the whole, though it may be useful in very specific instances where you consciously mean to invoke a trope.


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

Scribble, unfortunately super-lengthy excerpts cut from other sites is against our policy.  Google penalizes us for lengthy excerpts.

I'm going to edit your post to remove it, but I wanted to give you the chance to send me a PM picking a shorter excerpt you would like me to leave for the discussion.

I'll be responding in a separate post about awesomeness.


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade (Nov 5, 2013)

*Sad Sigh* There goes my mine laying, fire breathing, triple winged, fanged rainbow unicorns of death, with their shoulder mounted ice cannons and their riders, who are just to awesome for words- seriously, they make Thor look like a rabbit!
*snigger*


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

The Mary Sue definition that I use and find helpful is a character whose positive traits are excessive enough to risk breaking immersion.  I think that's a good line to watch for - I hate the other definitions.

As for awesome, I love awesome.  But I've got a definition for that, too.    Well, not really for awesome, exactly.  But when I look for ways to create a "Crowning Moment of Awesome" in my writing, I do it by looking for ways that this specific character can resolve a plot point in ways that _only_ that character, with his or her personality, would ever think to do.  Which means I need problems nobody else can fix.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

I guess that's going to vary from reader to reader, though, so what's the best approach to assess it?  Jack Reacher, for example, doesn't break immersion for me, but the guy is always just so much better at everything than anyone else in the books that many would probably view him as a Mary Sue.


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Nov 5, 2013)

Mary Sues are actually more important for the roleplaying (pen&paper and internet) community, as those characters often hug the spotlight and ruin the game for others. Of course in a book that's less important because the main character is the most important character. 

I'm not particularly fond of those characters (in books/movies/games) though. Of course there are characters that are _good_ and that share the Mary Sue DNA. But most of the time, they are written horribly and most of the time, a well written three-dimensional character is a lot more compelling than a well written Mary Sue.

Mary Sue isn't just about being better. It's about combining all the clichÃ©s in an attempt to create the perfect character. These characters are generally very one-dimensional because they only have strengths, not flaws.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 5, 2013)

Abbas-Al-Morim said:


> Mary Sues are actually more important for the roleplaying (pen&paper and internet) community, as those characters often hug the spotlight and ruin the game for others. Of course in a book that's less important because the main character is the most important character.
> 
> I'm not particularly fond of those characters (in books/movies/games) though. Of course there are characters that are _good_ and that share the Mary Sue DNA. But most of the time, they are written horribly and most of the time, a well written three-dimensional character is a lot more compelling than a well written Mary Sue.
> 
> Mary Sue isn't just about being better. It's about combining all the clichÃ©s in an attempt to create the perfect character. These characters are generally very one-dimensional because they only have strengths, not flaws.



If a character has no flaws there's no room for growth. If there's no growth there's really no story, at least no compelling story.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> If a character has no flaws there's no room for growth. If there's no growth there's really no story, at least no compelling story.



No flaws? Sure, i'll go with that. 

The MC Kvothe from Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles grows during the story. He is certainly a Mary Sue.

I don't think the definition of Mary Sue has to be "no flaws".


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

I think you can write an engaging story without much if any character growth. I hesitate to mention Reacher again, but...


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> No flaws? Sure, i'll go with that.
> 
> The MC Kvothe from Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles grows during the story. He is certainly a Mary Sue.
> 
> I don't think the definition of Mary Sue has to be "no flaws".



The way that I read this is that you're saying that Kvothe is portrayed as having no flaws.  If my interpretation is correct, I must say I disagree.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2013)

No...I meant he has flaws AND he's a Mary Sue.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> No flaws? Sure, i'll go with that.
> 
> The MC Kvothe from Rothfuss's Kingkiller Chronicles grows during the story. He is certainly a Mary Sue.
> 
> I don't think the definition of Mary Sue has to be "no flaws".



I don't agree that he's a Mary Sue. That seems to be the bone of contention here.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 5, 2013)

Devor said:


> As for awesome, I love awesome.  But I've got a definition for that, too.    Well, not really for awesome, exactly.  But when I look for ways to create a "Crowning Moment of Awesome" in my writing, I do it by looking for ways that this specific character can resolve a plot point in ways that _only_ that character, with his or her personality, would ever think to do.  Which means I need problems nobody else can fix.



This is worth posting above my monitor! Bravo


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Jack Reacher, for example, doesn't break immersion for me, but the guy is always just so much better at everything than anyone else in the books that many would probably view him as a Mary Sue.



I think that's fine.  Everything is arbitrary, except in the extremes.

This kind of trope jargon, let's call it, is only useful as a tool for dissecting the elements of a story.  I don't really see much value to an aspiring author in going on a Mary Sue witch hunt - not to disparage a fan community that has fun doing it.  But I think the value is in thinking, "I have this character.  I'm worried he's becoming a bit of a Mary Sue.  Maybe I should go back and tone down his magic and skills and make him struggle a little more before making the right choices."


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

Scribble said:


> This is worth posting above my monitor! Bravo



Thanks!

/10chars


----------



## Abbas-Al-Morim (Nov 5, 2013)

This all comes down to your definition of Mary Sue. My definition comes from my roleplaying experience (internet, not pen&paper) and there a Mary Sue is defined as an over-the-top clichÃ© character that is too perfect (and has no flaws) and that is just a paradox in itself. 



> The incredibly popular cheerleader who's beautiful, writes poetry, is very intelligent (she's going to study law at Harvard!) is also a gymnast, was the youngest girl to successfully play an entire piano concerto of Beethoven, lost both her parents in a car crash, is very angst-y (which is why she writes really deep poetry) and has a very low self image, despite always being friendly and carefree.



The character is a walking paradox. The writer wants to create the perfect character. Not only is she perfect at everything she does, she has a tragic past and faces a lot of problems we do too. That's why we _must_ sympathize with her. Of course this is impossible. If your character really has such a tragic past then she won't be carefree all the time. She'll have issues. Most of the time, the writer then completely drops the ball writing her. They ignore the tragic past (except when they need pity points) and always hug the spotlight. The lights go out in the school? No problem, they'll shove aside the janitor with a working knowledge of electricity because of course they, the queen bee cheerleader with the tragic past, have learned how to fix the plugs that one summer when she was on international exchange and stayed at an electrician's house. There's a talent show coming up? Instead of performing one of their many talents, they'll invent a new one because they need to show how different and unique they are. If someone (just one person) doesn't like them, they'll start crying and have a breakdown about their past so the other person has to like them. They're everything the author could ever hope to be. 

And most of the time, in roleplaying, they're played only to get the love interest (usually the handsomest male character on the forum). Because how can he not love her if she's perfect?

EDIT: I only roleplay Fantasy and of course this character has an equivalent (a male equivalent as well) in every genre.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> No...I meant he has flaws AND he's a Mary Sue.



Okay.  I can agree with that to an extent.  I'm not a big definer of Mary Sues kinda guy.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 5, 2013)

Yeah, "tragic past but carefree" makes it clear the complete Mary Sue is a contradiction.

Or, would be if not handled correctly. And, the real sign of a Mary Sue is that the writer came up with enough touches to try to win our respect --pure wish-fulfillment-- but didn't write them well enough. A Mary Sue is a gimmick, a good idea that's only barely explored; a Kvothe type is (to me) an idealized character seen in such detail that he becomes a great read.

But, how about Superman?

Yeah, the guy everyone admires... and then backs away from and says he's too perfect to relate to. Unless you've got one of the writers that understands he's only _almost_ perfect, and that the weight of everything he does is a challenge for any godling.

"Awesome" makes it easy to get attention, harder to write a story -- but if you do know how to pull it off, anything can work.


----------



## NellaFantasia (Nov 5, 2013)

A good writer can manipulate a Mary Sue or a cliche to be workable and likeable. The idea behind Mary Sues and cliches have such a negative light that most try so hard to stay away from them, go down a list of what they _shouldn't_ do, and end up with a mess. Cliches aren't inherently bad; it's the execution.

And since it's been brought up, I'll go ahead and use Kvothe as an example character. I've talked with people who didn't like The Name of the Wind because they thought Kvothe was too perfect, which is understandable. Patrick Rothfuss created Kvothe as a portrayal of the classic legendary hero, so the character walks a fine line between "realistic, likeable character" and "predictable, boring cliche".

However, I think Rothfuss took an overdone character idea and made it different by adding a few elements to the mix. Kvothe may have some of the definitions of a fantasy hero, but instead of wielding the magical sword of instant victory, he works hard to get where he wants to go, makes mistakes that cost him and/or other people, and sometimes fails at his goals. This in turn makes him relatable to the reader and the story a little more unpredictable because you don't know if Kvothe's choices will affect the world around him in a good way or a bad way.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2013)

NellaFantasia said:


> A good writer can manipulate a Mary Sue or a cliche to be workable and likeable. The idea behind Mary Sues and cliches have such a negative light that most try so hard to stay away from them, go down a list of what they shouldn't do, and end up with a mess. Cliches aren't inherently bad; it's the execution.
> 
> And since it's been brought up, I'll go ahead and use Kvothe as an example character. I've talked with people who didn't like The Name of the Wind because they thought Kvothe was too perfect, which is understandable. Patrick Rothfuss created Kvothe as a portrayal of the classic legendary hero, so the character walks a fine line between "realistic, likeable character" and "predictable, boring cliche".
> 
> However, I think Rothfuss took an overdone character idea and made it different by adding a few elements to the mix. Kvothe may have some of the definitions of a fantasy hero, but instead of wielding the magical sword of instant victory, he works hard to get where he wants to go, makes mistakes that cost him and/or other people, and sometimes fails at his goals. This in turn makes him relatable to the reader and the story a little more unpredictable because you don't know if Kvothe's choices will affect the world around him in a good way or a bad way.



I agree Nella. It's all about the execution. 

I might have given the impression that I don't like the character. On the contrary, I'm a big fan, despite my opinion of him being a Mary Sue. Honestly, I could care less about cliches or tropes...if it's interesting, that's enough.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 5, 2013)

I'm gonna drag up Harry Dresden again, because he's awesome.
He starts out fairly wimpy but over the course of fourteen or so books he grows to become a stupendously awesome magician. It's done over time and little by little. This makes it easier to go with it and accept the awesomeness of the character. After all, it's Harry and you know he's done things almost this cool before, he can reach a little further and be even more awesome (because he always does).
He's just a guy though. He still has his other issues he can't deal with or which he can't handle very well. Mundane everyday issues any regular guy can have and relate to in one way or another. He's worried about his cat and trying to figure out how he feels about the women in his life and so on. Being a powerful magician doesn't really help with those things.
Dresden becomes more and more awesome in some way. But, more importantly, in other ways he's just as inept and incompetent as I am (or, well, almost). As a reader I can relate to him. I think that makes his awesome things more awesome.

In contrast, the Iron Druid series tries to do the same thing, but doesn't really pull it off. The MC there is too awesome and cool from the get go. Instead of having abilities and contacts that are just a little bit cooler than I am, he's leagues ahead of me in the things he does and the people he hangs around with. Too much contrast.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> In contrast, the Iron Druid series tries to do the same thing, but doesn't really pull it off. The MC there is too awesome and cool from the get go. Instead of having abilities and contacts that are just a little bit cooler than I am, he's leagues ahead of me in the things he does and the people he hangs around with. Too much contrast.



Plus, the writing isn't as good as Butcher's.


----------



## Dragev (Nov 6, 2013)

I've only read the 5 first Dresden books, no spoilers please! 
But I agree that even in those, the "awesome" ramps up bit by bit, which makes it more interesting. A perfect example of "too much awesome" would be Dragon Ball Z; I can't stand the bloody thing. In the first story arc (if memory serves), the MC faces off against a guy who can _*DESTROY THE EARTH AWMAGAAAWD*_. Where do you go from there? A guy who can destroy *several planets at once*? That's ridi - Oh, apparently, they do, my bad...

From there, it just gets boring; Goku (or whatever the hell his name is) dies and is revived several times, the Earth is destroyed and rebuilt (again, several times) and the whole thing ultimately feels like an arcade fighting game with a string of increasingly ridiculously overpowered antagonists that the MC eventually defeats (somehow...) in increasingly drawn-out battles. San-whatever can defeat Thor, Morgoth, God, Satan and Cthulu all together as long as he's angry enough...


----------



## oyler44 (Nov 6, 2013)

Holy crap, that makes so much sense.


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 7, 2013)

I always understood "Mary Sue" to mean simply "perfectly flawless character", and the conventional wisdom goes that these kinds of characters are boring. That said, I want to offer a different perspective on the concept of flawed protagonists, or at least morally flawed ones.

When I was a kid, I used to dislike it whenever the protagonists did something that wasn't the morally right thing to do. Take _The Lion King_ for example. I felt let down when Simba disobeyed his father by going to the elephant graveyard and getting himself into trouble. I felt that since he was the story's leading good guy, he was supposed to always do the right thing. Doing the right thing is what the good guys, by definition, are supposed to do. The concept of a good character doing a bad thing did not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Now that I've grown up a bit since childhood, I'm more accepting of a certain degree of fallibility in heroes, but I still have a psychological need for moral differences between the protagonists and antagonists. Even grayer heroes like Conan need to stand on a higher moral ground than their opposition. I am not a fan of total moral ambiguity.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 7, 2013)

I'm open to either approach in terms of morality or lack thereof. Didn't Conan once pummel a woman into unconsciousness (well, I think it was one punch) because she wouldn't go into a cave with him?


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 7, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I'm open to either approach in terms of morality or lack thereof. Didn't Conan once pummel a woman into unconsciousness (well, I think it was one punch) because she wouldn't go into a cave with him?



I don't remember that scene, but I did acknowledge that he was one of the grayer and less perfect heroes.


----------



## sarasvati (Nov 8, 2013)

My understanding (from the role-playing and fanfic communities I frequented) was that a Mary Sue was the author's wish fulfillment character. The character never really has to try because the author just hands everything to them on a silver platter. It's boring because we know the character is going to "win" at everything, so there's no real tension. But the definition of Mary Sue, and if it's important to even consider, should depend on its usefulness to you, I guess. If it's helpful to think of your character in terms of having enough flaws/imperfections, then use it.

I do think "awesome" is a balancing act. You have to have enough things that are "cool" in order to garner interest, but if you scale it up too much, then the "awesome" gets bland. Dragon Ball Z, mentioned above, was a good example. They had to keep amping up the characters' powers to top the last one. Superheroes, especially the ones who have been around for a long time (Superman comics have been going for something like 75 years), can easily run into this problem. The superhero is so strong that he needs to be challenged by a supervillain, and then they just end up punching each other endlessly because neither one can be beaten.

I like characters who are a bit ordinary but end up in extraordinary circumstances. You know that one day where you ended up being in the right (or wrong) place at that particular time, and suddenly you were caught up in something bigger than yourself? That's the kind of story that I can relate to. I don't think of myself as an awesome person, but a few times in my life I've gotten the opportunity to do awesome things, and they stand out for me even years later.


----------



## Helen (Nov 8, 2013)

Scribble said:


> How do you deal with "awesomeness"? How do you know when you've sacrificed depth for awesomeness? It seems like a frailty of our genre. What do you think?



I think it misses the point, which is that a story is always two stories (at least). 

You're going to have the awesome "got to rescue the Princess, steal the treasure while the dragon's asleep" type of awesomeness, the cgi, the explosions, Bruce Willis shooting villains etc.

But underneath that, there's always the human story.

So it's a false choice. You're not choosing between depth and awesomeness, it's both.

You won't have sacrificed depth for awesome, you'll just have left out the depth (human) part.


----------



## Scribble (Nov 8, 2013)

Helen said:


> I think it misses the point, which is that a story is always two stories (at least).
> 
> You're going to have the awesome "got to rescue the Princess, steal the treasure while the dragon's asleep" type of awesomeness, the cgi, the explosions, Bruce Willis shooting villains etc.
> 
> ...




You've nailed it. If you are writing fantasy, you can (and should) have both.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 8, 2013)

Scribble said:


> You've nailed it. If you are writing fantasy, you can (and should) have both.



I shoot for both, but I'm not sure that the "should" is correct.  There's room in the genre of fantasy for pure adventure.  Sometimes the reader just wants a good shoot 'em up.  Nothing wrong, imo, with authors serving that market.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 8, 2013)

All true. It's all about good writing and knowing what you want.

I would say, the OP does make me think that writers might let "separate awesomes" pile up for their own sake, and the number of them makes the story seem crazier and harder to manage. 

In D&D-inspired tales it might be having everything from sword to shoelaces its own talisman; 
the sillier Superman tales play up super-breath, super-ventriloquism, and who knows what; 
in urban fantasy it's how many blood traits, Power Gifts, and then alliances the heroine discovers from different mythic races. 
(Or just think of the prince's rescue from _Sleeping Beauty_: wouldn't "Here's a magic shield-- and a magic sword" have sounded better as just "Here's a magic sword"?)

Of course sometimes someone with one background does have a whole bag of tricks-- or, there's the problem of a character after several books having more options than you can do justice to. But if you start a story out by thinking of terms of how _many_ kinds of awesome your character has in his utility belt, you might be on the wrong track.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 8, 2013)

> Legendary knights with their +20 blades of asskickery looked dull and boring alongside this sad little cripple.
> .... and you realize that this is essentially the same concept as the Lord of the Rings. A bunch of in-over-their-heads hobbits fighting an evil they should never have had to confront, looking pathetic and helpless beside all the other proper warriors of the Fellowship.
> 
> There is a reason why, overwhelmingly SAM is regarded as the favorite character. Not Legolas with his bow of Gimli with his axe, Gandalf with his magic or Aragorn with his crown.
> ...



This quote is an interesting one, but the focus of the thread thus far has really shifted to Mary Sues.  I'd like to discuss this a bit:

Why is the pathetic character seen as the favorite?

I don't think it's because the awesome characters are awesome.  Frankly, I want to read about characters who are awesome.  I want them to have super powers and be extraordinary.

I think it's because the pathetic character struggles more.  Tension is formed by struggle.  It's the attempt to achieve a goal and having the reader doubt that the goal can be achieved.  Tension is a driver of interest.

It's hard to be interested in a character if there's no tension associated with that character.

If I'm right, the key to this situation isn't about making your characters too awesome or not real enough.  It's about making sure they struggle despite their awesomeness.


----------



## Bruce McKnight (Nov 9, 2013)

Nobody likes perfect characters, but Drizzt Do'Urden sold a lot of books and Chuck Norris sold a lot of movies.

I can't figure it out, either...


----------



## Devor (Nov 9, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If I'm right, the key to this situation isn't about making your characters too awesome or not real enough.  It's about making sure they struggle despite their awesomeness.



I think there's a lot of truth in that.  But I would add one thing:  The longer you're with the character, the more variety of struggles you're going to need.  That's one of the issues I have with Superman.  He's great for a movie or two, but eventually it's:  What shape is the kryptonite going to come in today?

I think the conflicts have to be in some way appropriate for the character.  I want to learn more about the character from the way he tackles conflict.  The more Mary-Sue-awesome the character is, the bigger the conflicts have to escalate, and that creates new challenges in finding conflicts that are appropriate.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 9, 2013)

Devor said:


> I think there's a lot of truth in that.  But I would add one thing:  The longer you're with the character, the more variety of struggles you're going to need.  That's one of the issues I have with Superman.  He's great for a movie or two, but eventually it's:  What shape is the kryptonite going to come in today?
> 
> I think the conflicts have to be in some way appropriate for the character.  I want to learn more about the character from the way he tackles conflict.  The more Mary-Sue-awesome the character is, the bigger the conflicts have to escalate, and that creates new challenges in finding conflicts that are appropriate.



I think that's part of the problem Raymond Feist had with Pug. He'd made Pug such an awesome wizard that coming up with things that were real threats to him became harder and harder.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 10, 2013)

Definitely true. I always say it's especially bad for comics because they come out with one issue (per title, plus extras) every month-- for 75 years now. (The only thing that's comparable is soap operas, 5 per week-- but nobody expects a given actor to stay around that long, and soaps are expected to repeat themselves.)

It's something for novelists to watch for. When you have any kind of powerful character, that power's usually part of his basic appeal so fans feel cheated if you depower him for too long. And if you get a few books out, that all have him going from strong to stronger, you run out of places to go. Maybe the lesson here is, if power is key to the character, keep him out of plotlines where he gets noticeably stronger.


----------



## oyler44 (Nov 11, 2013)

Honestly, instead of a conflict of "how awesome can I make my character, but still have the character be personable," I focus more on the hardships and lessons learned from the story to make the character personable. Look at Thor for instance. He is basically a god, but Marvel still found him to be within the category of a good character. They just focused on REALLY messing his days up. So focus on asking yourself.... "How can I make my character's day worse?"


----------



## oyler44 (Nov 11, 2013)

Another example of what happens when your character becomes too awesome. Dragonlance's Raistlin. Anyone familiar with the story knows how he became too awesome and the only way to end it before Raistlin became "too boring" they gave him a change of heart. PERFECT ending to an eternal struggle of morals and unending torment.


----------

