# Ok kill off main characters or not?



## Kreigsbane (Feb 4, 2012)

Ok I'm new to the site but not writing.

I have a firm belief that for any new story it should combine the old cliches and new ones, such as the characters live or like I like to do is the opposite and kill off several of them. Harry Potter wouldn't have been as good if Dumbledoor hadn't died just an example.
I'm writing a story called "The Fall from Grace" its my view of how Lucifer (the devil) breaks away from God and Heaven (in epic fantasy style). I created my current favorite character 'Kriegsbane' which is my profile name, and i intend to kill him off after he helps to even out the battle. He carries something i call a 'Blest' weapon. After an angel proves its worth as a Hero of Heaven God himself forges them a weapon. Kriegsbane is given a massive greatsword named 'Faithshredder' (i also drew this sword, think of Cloud's sword but cooler lol). He is fighting an enemy general, and he is surprised by a blast from an enemy siege cannon and he dies.

Please I would like to hear if anyone thinks that letting characters live or killing them off is better.


----------



## Chilari (Feb 4, 2012)

It depends, I think, on delivery. My instinct is that the situation you describe - where the death is sudden and unexpected and largely unrelated to the current action (the battle with the general) - that this may not be ideal. Generally speaking, a story should be a series of cause to effect sequences. Logical progressions, as it were, from one thing to the next. Now, if you've established that there are explosions going off everywhere and they're lucky to have survived this long, or alternatively that there's a group of individuals deliberately targetting your main character, that's one thing. But if the explosion is without context it will feel cheap.

I think I understand what you're trying to go for here. War is not about idealism and fairness and having a great story to tell at the end of it; it doesn't always, or even often, work out the way the movies always seem to set up. In a battle, especially one containing inaccurate explosive projectiles, it's not just the weak or the slow or the cowardly who are killed. But the problem is that there's a line between realism and a good story. It can in places be a very blurred line, but it is there, and you need to work out how much realism you are willing to sacrifice for story, and how much story you are willing to sacrifice for realism.

As for the whole idea of killing major characters, no problems with that one. As long as it's well set up, and the impact is handled well, then go for it. That most stories end with the protagonists alive does not mean that all must. Sometimes the death of the protagonist at the end of the story can have the greatest impact on the readers.


----------



## San Cidolfus (Feb 4, 2012)

Chilari said it well.

I feel the need to ask, though: if God likes this guy enough that He will forge the dude an artifact endowed with righteous power and command him to wield it in His name, can't He shield the old boy from the odd random projectile?


----------



## Kreigsbane (Feb 4, 2012)

Well the explosion that kills my main character is actually a trap. The general was only a distraction, the entire fight scene was a trap to stop the destruction the main character was causing on the enemy army.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 4, 2012)

San Cidolfus said:


> Chilari said it well.
> 
> I feel the need to ask, though: if God likes this guy enough that He will forge the dude an artifact endowed with righteous power and command him to wield it in His name, can't He shield the old boy from the odd random projectile?



Now theres a good point. In fantasy, you need to be mighty mighty careful when you set up a God character who can directly effect the world. Why would God not protect him? Maybe that's a theme that you already intend to play with?


----------



## Kreigsbane (Feb 4, 2012)

haha I totally understand where you're coming from because I literally thought about this last night. I have noticed in films and real life that people complain that "God hates them" or "isn't fair" and i take this into consideration, so in my eyes God doesn't fully intervene in life. He sits back and watches what happens to us and how we react. This is how I imagine this to happen in my story, God intervenes a few times and sits back and watches it all go down. So I didn't write it where God shields anyone he just helps them so much and watches.

I hope I explained that well enough.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Feb 4, 2012)

As usual, Chilari speaks words of wisdom.

Yes, a lot of questions on writing come down to delivery.  I believe a writer should be dedicated to the story, not to the characters.  Therefore they need to be ruthless, ready to let go of the characters they have created and nurtured into existance, grown to be proud of, and kill them off IF that is what the story demands, without protective mercy.  It does not work well if they die simply to increase the good guy's body count, but show the reader that everything is tied neatly into the story, and then it works wonders.

Sorry, that was both dark and complicated, don't know what came over me.  As for the point about God protecting him, I think the story would hold a lot more danger if you show that God is not omnipotent, his plans don't always work and he can't always save people.  Thats just my opinion.


----------



## Devor (Feb 4, 2012)

Kreigsbane said:


> Please I would like to hear if anyone thinks that letting characters live or killing them off is better.



Kill 'em all!!!  The main character in life is you, and you're going to die someday, right?

That was supposed to be a joke, but I think it came out kind of real and dark.  Sorry about that.

Above all, you need your readers to like and care about your characters.  If killing your characters will make your readers react well to your stories, then do it.  Just make sure there's something left in your story to like after your super dramatic dead-character moment, or else your story may as well be over.


----------



## Voldermort (Feb 5, 2012)

Kreigsbane said:


> Ok I'm new to the site but not writing.
> 
> I have a firm belief that for any new story it should combine the old cliches and new ones, such as the characters live or like I like to do is the opposite and kill off several of them. Harry Potter wouldn't have been as good if Dumbledoor hadn't died just an example.
> I'm writing a story called "The Fall from Grace" its my view of how Lucifer (the devil) breaks away from God and Heaven (in epic fantasy style). I created my current favorite character 'Kriegsbane' which is my profile name, and i intend to kill him off after he helps to even out the battle. He carries something i call a 'Blest' weapon. After an angel proves its worth as a Hero of Heaven God himself forges them a weapon. Kriegsbane is given a massive greatsword named 'Faithshredder' (i also drew this sword, think of Cloud's sword but cooler lol). He is fighting an enemy general, and he is surprised by a blast from an enemy siege cannon and he dies.
> ...



It's pretty normal to have characters die. Watch "The Grey."

I have a problem with letting the main character die before the end. 

It's OK for Harry Potter to die after he's dealt with Voldermort, but not before. It would be weird. Jesus dies in the end, but that has purpose (rebirth).

But then again, there are stories where the main character switches. In which case you can kill them off.

Alot of this is to do with the product. You can do whatever you want, but if you want to sell it to a mass market, you don't make it too confusing and stick to form (don't kill the MC until the end). 

Frodo didn't die.
Dorothy didn't die.
The siblings didn't die (Lion, Witch, Wardrobe).
Tony Soprano didn't die.

There's a lot to be said for sticking to that form.


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 5, 2012)

Been meaning to reply, guess I never got around to it. I haven't decided if I will kill off my main character, but he will certainly be put in mortal peril by people that used to be his friends, people that hopefully the reader will have developed an emotional interest in. I think that wounding someone can make for better storytelling than killing them, death is preferable to injury, especially in the settings we write.

We should never lose sight of our readers nd the impact we want to have on them.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Feb 5, 2012)

As I see it, characters are a resource. They serve a purpose to the story and if you kill them, the death must also serve the story in some way. Usually when I kill a character, that character was intended to die all along for a specific purpose. Killing characters at random is pointless and wasteful - the death of a character, and especially a _main_ character, has to be _important._ It should drive the plot, change the circumstances, cause serious character development in the surviving characters. A good death should be written in such a way that no matter how sad it makes you or how pointless it seems, the rest of the story would simply not have happened if the character survived.

Kriegsbane, killing your MC isn't _necessarily _a bad idea. However, the mere fact that you are asking us wether or not you should go through with it suggests your story can manage either way. To me, that doesn't sound like your MC's death is actually important to the plot. If you can still tell the story without killing him, then I suggest you do.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 5, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> As I see it, characters are a resource. They serve a purpose to the story and if you kill them, the death must also serve the story in some way. Usually when I kill a character, that character was intended to die all along for a specific purpose. Killing characters at random is pointless and wasteful - the death of a character, and especially a _main_ character, has to be _important._ It should drive the plot, change the circumstances, cause serious character development in the surviving characters. A good death should be written in such a way that no matter how sad it makes you or how pointless it seems, the rest of the story would simply not have happened if the character survived.



Agreed. Even if the purpose is to demonstrate that life is uncertain because death can strike at random, there needs to be a purpose.

Like Anders said, if it doesn't make any difference to your story whether the character dies, why waste time killing him?


----------



## Drakhov (Feb 5, 2012)

Killing off the hero after they've accomplished their purpose can be a a powerful conclusion to a story, but it needs to be done in a way that the reader doesn't feel cheated.  

The Legend of King Arthur, Norse & Greek mythology and Moorcock's _Eternal Champion_ series have similar themes (I'm not saying these are the the best examples,, but they might give you something to compare your own with). A better example might be David Gemmel's _Jerusalem Man_ trilogy (the main character plays a role very similar to Kriegsbane's).

A random death caused by an exploding missile or seige engine could have this effect on your own readers - a pointless death where it should be epic or tragic - you mention your hero's blessed weapon, Faithshredder. {SPOILER ALERT if any of you haven't read Moorcock's _Elric_ books}-  Have you thought about that being the cause of your hero's death it breaking at the moment of Kreigsbane's triumph, or turning on it's wielder, as Elric's sword _Stormbringer_ does. END SPOILER}


----------



## Ciara Ballintyne (Feb 6, 2012)

As a reader, I don't like it if the protagonist dies. It's pretty much a ticket directly to the 'this book sucked and I will never read it or another book by this author' again pile. 

It's OK to kill secondary characters. The more secondary, the more acceptable. 

It's even better if you bring them back to life again. The less secondary the character is, the more important this bit becomes to me. 

This is NOT a writer's take on the situation. You can consider it an audience perspective. 

But by all means hurt the hell out of your protagonist.


----------



## Gwynneth White (Feb 6, 2012)

I have the same question. Is it in the definition of God? What will God allow and won't won't he allow? What is God's motivation in killing off this character? Does God - in this world - hold sway over life and death? And also, I would be careful about killing off THE main protagonist because readers may wonder why they should bother reading to the end if the guy they have come to love and are rooting for is killed prematurely. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Devor (Feb 6, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Agreed. Even if the purpose is to demonstrate that life is uncertain because death can strike at random, there needs to be a purpose.
> 
> Like Anders said, if it doesn't make any difference to your story whether the character dies, why waste time killing him?



That's true enough, but I don't think that the purpose needs to be spelled out and articulated beforehand, or you could end up justifying almost anything.  For me it comes down to the pulse of the story and whether the impact it'll have on readers and on the characters feels right or not.  There are consequences to a death - that's why it has such an impact - and it will depend, for me, on whether those consequences improve the story and its characters going forward or bog it down with grief.


----------



## Kreigsbane (Feb 7, 2012)

I picture it as thus: in the beginning God created light (without going too much into the origins of God) but what created the darkness that there was need of light? I created monsters and the like that thrive in the dark and as God's created his fighting force of angels, He expanded Heaven's borders. The monsters or Fell Titans I dubbed them fight back and this in turn starts The Beginning War or War of Genesis. God can decide who lives and dies but doesn't always intervene. He allows the death of millions of angels in the Beginning War and again when Lucifer (Satan) breaks away from Heaven. I see God as an observer although he is seen through the novels (I plan to finish). God also lets everything happen as he sees it pass by, he is powerful not completely all powerful except over what he has created.
And I haven't decided yet if Kriegsbane is the main protagonist or not, I do focus on him alot during the battles but with the cast of characters I haven't yet figured just who is the main character.


----------



## Phoenix (Feb 7, 2012)

Maybe your characters death is God's saying his mission in life is over? Is death so terrible when you know you have Heaven afterwards? Maybe he sees the artillery (or however he's about to die) and is about to avoid it. When suddenly, the calming hand of God comes over him. A voice whispers through his ear,"_Rest my child. This is not the time of evil's fall._" A smile comes to his face. Peace settles over him, enveloping his whole body. The cannon shudders, there is a bright flash. Peace crashes over all, in a tremendous wave.


----------



## SlimShady (Feb 7, 2012)

Phoenix said:


> Maybe your characters death is God's saying his mission in life is over? Is death so terrible when you know you have Heaven afterwards? Maybe he sees the artillery (or however he's about to die) and is about to avoid it. When suddenly, the calming hand of God comes over him. A voice whispers through his ear,"_Rest my child. This is not the time of evil's fall._" A smile comes to his face. Peace settles over him, enveloping his whole body. The cannon shudders, there is a bright flash. Peace crashes over all, in a tremendous wave.



  IMHO that kind of cheapens the death for me.  I mean you know he went to a peaceful place. (some sort of paradise) Life after death is so uncertain that you should keep it that way.  I mean just think if George RR Martin did something sort of the same with Eddard Stark.  You wouldn't mourn over him half as much if you truly knew he went to a better place.  We as people don't really know if there's an afterlife so that makes death so uncertain and sad.  You don't know if your soul goes on or if it just rots in the ground.  

  This just makes death so much more final and certain for me. But, that's obviously just my oppinion.


----------



## Phoenix (Feb 7, 2012)

Good point Shady, the above of course was just my opinion as well.


----------



## Kelise (Feb 8, 2012)

I've read a few series recently where the books have had a few focus/main characters (or a character set to be the hero) and they've been killed. In the next book, the other focus/main characters have had more attention. I think it works (in these examples, which I won't name because even saying the title of the book is basically a spoiler for what happens - I'll answer in a private message if anyone is interested though) and it can be very effective.

The reason for his/her death has to be worth it though. There has to be no other option (if it's a sacrifice) or it should cause the rest of the plot to happen (if murder/intentional). It shouldn't be cheap or there just to shock.


----------



## terence.soule (Feb 8, 2012)

starconstant said:


> The reason for his/her death has to be worth it though. QUOTE]
> 
> I agree.  Also I think to get the most out of it it should be foreshadowed (a hard thing to pull off without being too obvious).  The sudden, seemingly random death of a beloved character is likely to annoy readers.  Whereas good foreshadowing, where it implies the character really might die, can increase the drama and suspense of a work.


----------



## SlimShady (Feb 8, 2012)

Phoenix said:


> Good point Shady, the above of course was just my opinion as well.




  Yeah.  I mean there isn't really a right or wrong answer.  I mean you can't please everybody when your a writer.  Some people will love something, while others will hate.  As a writer I believe the only thing you can do is follow your heart.  (Sounded corny but it's true)


----------

