I mean, let's take Anomen as an example (because it's the one example that we're all familiar with). Anomen is a pretty cool guy, all in all. He's insecure, he's angry, he's arrogant - and then, when no one disputes his competence any longer, he calms down a lot. That's cool in my books: a character with problems I can relate to, a realistic arc, and so on. But how do you write that part when he still is arrogant and, in his own specialised way, an idiot, without making the reader hate him? (And yes, I know that many people actually do hate him. Like I said, example.)

And that's a canon character! How do you write flawed PCs - not those who are outright bastards, I mean, those are easy - but those who are *slightly* too avaricious, *slightly* too cowardly, *slightly* too reckless, *slightly* too lawful; in other words, human, even if they are dwarf or gnome? How do you reveal the flaws in the text - again, without making readers lose interest?

That's one thing that has been bugging me ever since I've started writing Pygmalion. I would appreciate some opinions!

The other thing is connected to the previous one. How do you write arguments - not playful teasing, but serious, insult-throwing rows - without taking parts and revealing authorial sympathy on either side?

Miradel ("Minor" main character) is, basicaly, a coward and vengative hag. She's as charming as a pig. Yet she has brain, is cunning, pragmatic and cares for people without being overprotective. I did those flaws having a look at both Aerie and Edwin, I "personalized" the flaws and good things and added some other flaws. HOW exactly I added those last flaws I'm not sure. Sorry for not having helped you enough.

Good luck! (You'll still see me around)

Generally, I make a draft of the character in my mind. It's basically a general idea of how he or she is supposed to behave, some kind of list of major qualities and flaws. Then, as the story progresses, I apply that pattern regardless of what I would *like* the character to be doing there. I basically ask myself: What would a person who is this and that do here?

For an example, let's say a random stranger comes and smacks Jaheira over the head. She, a calm and calculated druid with the claim she has good self-control, isn't going to just plunge a sword in him without demanding an explanation first, right? On the other hand, if respective random stranger smacks Montaron, who is confrontational and predisposed to violence in the first place... do you think he'd ask for an explanation too? No.

As for conflicts, it's the same. It doesn't matter who you like more, it matters who has the better wit or who exactly is in the better situation at that moment. Sometimes, even those we really dislike can be right, and we need to accept it.

As for a reader who goes away because of one character... their problem. I'm not willing to go out of character for the readers. It's just like life - you can't change someone just because *you* don't like them. Maybe other people do.

Except that it makes for characters who are already formed - static, that is. What of growing up - showing slow, gradual change, so gradual that the character themselves is caught up in it and doesn't really notice it? And potentially not even especially logical a change?

And you're also right; that's the most difficult part. I'm not sure I can explain exactly how character evolution works for me, but it does in a similar manner as static characters. I still make a pattern, only I carefully trace the changes it suffers from the things the char goes through. Sometimes, when I can't bear it mentally, I grab a sheet of paper and write them down, placing the 'present' char traits in circles or some other things to make them stand out from the others.

Let's see if I can express it with an example. Imagine a character named X who starts off as naive, for which I have a sheet of paper who says: "X - naive". X meets a guy who says he can perform some random service if X gives him credits. Since we said the char is naive, the guy is trusted, gets paid and does nothing, running off with the money. Therefore, the character becomes slightly less naive by learning from that experience, which I write on the paper and encircle as being the present trait, while the complete naivete becomes past. Thus, the pattern I had in my mind for that character has changed and X has suffered some manner of evolution. Next time a guy offers his services for credits, the character won't trust him as easily as it did the first time because it remembers what happened then.

Of course, this is just the simple scheme. It can get quite compicated with complex characters. There are usually much more factors involved than this. But I hope it helps as much as possible.

1. Forums are not to be used to post stories.
2. All discussions, language and content, must be suitable for teens.
3. The owner/moderator(s) of this forum is solely responsible for content posted within this area.
4. All forum abuse must be reported to the moderator(s).

1. Forum admin/moderator
2. Fanatic (on site for more than 2 years)
3. Fan (on site for more than a year)
4. Regular (on site for more than 6 months)
5. Camper (on site for more than a month)
6. Apprentice (on site for more than a week)
7. Newbie (on site for less than a week)