Advice/Help How to RP a "Good" character

[Lunaria Silver]

In the thread there are two factions, and the one that is mostly made up of "good" people had a lot less characters in it than the one with the "evil" people. Naturally I felt obligated to make a good guy, but I've never actually rped one before.
My characters are almost always morally ambiguous. Or evil.
So I was just wondering if anyone had any advice for how to keep my character from feeling flat.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Well characters in general should be people before they're an alignment. If you make someone for the sole purpose of just filling out a ratio than it's likely going to be flat just because your not really playing something you enjoy but are rather focused on filling a empty gap.

That said that are good aren't fundamentally that different than people that are evil or morally ambiguous. Everyone has reasons for what they believe and some kind of moral compass that leads them to act in a certain way.

Most evil people believe they are good in some way they just act in a way that society OR other characters find distasteful. Same with morally ambiguous people.

So by that token all you would need to change in a good vs. evil character is simply the perception other people would have of that character.

So rather than have them act outside of societal norms just have them act within them with a eye to making them someone that other players will perceive as good and you're pretty set.

 

[Bacon is fluffy]

In the thread there are two factions, and the one that is mostly made up of "good" people had a lot less characters in it than the one with the "evil" people. Naturally I felt obligated to make a good guy, but I've never actually rped one before.
My characters are almost always morally ambiguous. Or evil.
So I was just wondering if anyone had any advice for how to keep my character from feeling flat.

Think, Super man. Think Jesus. Think Vash the Stampede. Think Prince charming. Think people who selflessly help others when it's obviously more advantageous for them to simply stand by and do nothing. If you ever find yourself sitting at the computer screen thinking what to do next, just stress doing something that doesn't particularly benefit you in any way shape or form. Even if that means defending strangers who've no connection to you. Why?

Because that's what being a good guy generally is. Morally upstanding, goes above and beyond for the needs of others.

 

[amdreams]

In my opinion, it's about motivation. An altruistic paragon is going to be hard to pull off wothout getting bored I think. So set up a good motivation for your character.

Why are they doing this? Are they trying to protect someone? Do they idolize a hero and try to become like them? Is being a "good" guy a better paying job?

And once you have that, use it as a basic guideline as to how they would think or act. This way, they can even make mistakes, or do things the "bad" guys would do, just with good intention.

 

[Bone2pick]

My characters are almost always morally ambiguous. Or evil.

Kudos to you for trying to mix it up. Writing a good character shouldn't be any more daunting than writing a bad or neutralish one. They (good folk) just generally side with the high ground on moral issues. They still have fears, flaws, limits, goals, failures, heartbreak, ect.

Once you get going I suspect it won't be as difficult as you might have imagined.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

You could always try making an 'evil' character that tries to do good. 'Good' and 'evil' are just based perceptions others have of your character anyway. If your character does enough good deeds, helps enough characters, they become the edgy good guy by default. Then, if you take away the edge, you're left with a good guy.

Of course, if you're trying to go for the genuinely nice, genuinely caring, genuinely self sacrificing Marysue-ish type of character...think saints, I guess. Think no wrong of other characters. Let no evil words escape your characters lips. Embrace the holy light of purity and let your character's light shine down on the unfortunate, but be wary not to let arrogance or pride tempt them into the darkness. This is the trickier character, for you must always be vigilant and watch for any missteps. It's easier to stain white than black u_u

 

[Idea]

It really depends on what you are focusing on when you say "good". Is it the actions, the demeanor or the motivations? Depending on the answer , the character changes completely, but the important thing to remember is that generally speaking these three factors make the difference between being impossibly good and cartoonishly evil.

The first major type of "good characters" is when actions and demeanor are good, but not the motivations. So your characters comes off as a good person and ends up doing the right thing, even if they don't do it for the right reason. To be honest this is one of the hardest types to pull off and therefore one of the rarest, because it can be hard to covey that a character is good when their motivations are at the very least self-centered. For these you either have the policeman type, where a character does something cause it's their job and they need to make a living, thus being related to the struggles of the common man, or you have the "accidental savior" type where they go in to do one spiteful thing , like say take revenge on someone or make a robbery, and they end up doing something good and just kinda rolling with it. Other kinds would include minor characters like comic relief or kids , which usually get sympathy by association to a group.

The second major type of "good characters" would be when the demeanor and motivations are good but not the actions. This one is actually incredibly common nowadays, in particular in action movies. This is the guy that comes to rescue his kidnapped wife and is a real gentleman but if you give you think about it he just slaughtered 10 people who probably had family's and for all they knew were just doing normal security jobs. This is the easiest type to write right and make arcs around.

The third major type of "good characters" would be when the actions and intentions are good, but the demeanor is not. Be it because the character is dumb, because they are rude and cold or whatever reason, this is the most tragic type of good character. Despite doing everything in their power to do the good thing and the right thing, they are not recognized and can even be demeaned for it. Jesus imagery characters usually fall into this because there is that spirit of sacrifice at play in many of these cases, though sometimes it can also just be the character is mistaken. And while this isn't the hardest one to make appealing it is the one I recommend trying the least as they can be very powerful when done right but there will always be that temptation to shift the blame when writing one of these characters. This type of character can easily be turned into a Mary Sue/gary stu just by virtue of saying that the reason they are seen with poor eyes is because some evil dude in the shadows fabricated it or because they are not understood. Another frequent case of writing one of these characters poorly is placing a character with modern thinking into a world with a past culture, not bothering to explain why that special snowflake that has that type of thinking or why you always try to make them seem right instead of such as considering the hypthothesis that perhaps modern ways of thinking have flaws of their own. In other words, horribly done moralizing is a creeping issue in this type of character.



Anyways, hope I helped. Good luck!

 

[QuirkyAngel]

It really depends on what you are focusing on when you say "good". Is it the actions, the demeanor or the motivations? Depending on the answer , the character changes completely, but the important thing to remember is that generally speaking these three factors make the difference between being impossibly good and cartoonishly evil.

I liked how you categorized 'good' into three factors. Never really thought of it that way before, but it makes sense. I'm guessing when all 3 fall to one side, the character either becomes impossibly good or cartoonishly evil? ^^

The second major type of "good characters" would be when the demeanor and motivations are good but not the actions. This one is actually incredibly common nowadays, in particular in action movies. This is the guy that comes to rescue his kidnapped wife and is a real gentleman but if you give you think about it he just slaughtered 10 people who probably had family's and for all they knew were just doing normal security jobs. This is the easiest type to write right and make arcs around.

The act of saving the wife is a good thing...I think. It's really all in the viewpoint of the readers -and which side they take- whether an action can be considered good or evil. You can save the world, but at the cost of the villains and his/her family. Every action done has a consequence in my perspective. A cookie your character gives to a homeless guy just around the corer, is a cookie that could've saved a starving kid down the street. If an action saved a family by sending a villain to prison, but consequently caused the villain's family to fall apart and another villain to be created, was that action good or bad? How do really define a particular action as good or bad, unless you take motivation or demeanor into consideration?

The third major type of "good characters" would be when the actions and intentions are good, but the demeanor is not. Be it because the character is dumb, because they are rude and cold or whatever reason, this is the most tragic type of good character. Despite doing everything in their power to do the good thing and the right thing, they are not recognized and can even be demeaned for it. Jesus imagery characters usually fall into this because there is that spirit of sacrifice at play in many of these cases, though sometimes it can also just be the character is mistaken. And while this isn't the hardest one to make appealing it is the one I recommend trying the least as they can be very powerful when done right but there will always be that temptation to shift the blame when writing one of these characters. This type of character can easily be turned into a Mary Sue/gary stu just by virtue of saying that the reason they are seen with poor eyes is because some evil dude in the shadows fabricated it or because they are not understood. Another frequent case of writing one of these characters poorly is placing a character with modern thinking into a world with a past culture, not bothering to explain why that special snowflake that has that type of thinking or why you always try to make them seem right instead of such as considering the hypthothesis that perhaps modern ways of thinking have flaws of their own. In other words, horribly done moralizing is a creeping issue in this type of character.

Sounds like a Severus Snape or an Itachi type of a character. I've seen this type of character done...in really good villains. The key is to mask the character's true motivations and actions with a bad demeanor until the very end. Then, once the end hits, kaboom! Actual good guy is revealed. Revelations are made. The character will either be loved or hated depending on the shock factor. Actually, it's probably better to throw in small hints every once in while...to soften the impact of the surprise...but not too much because then it becomes obvious what you're doing....lol. Yeah. Tough character to do.

Unless you're talking about the Tsundere type of character...

Horribly done moralizing is something I've done with a character before. I just wait for players to point that out IC, so our characters can debate and character relationships can form, Never happened. I think people just felt sorry for her <.<

 

[Idea]

The act of saving the wife is a good thing...I think. It's really all in the viewpoint of the readers -and which side they take- whether an action can be considered good or evil. You can save the world, but at the cost of the villains and his/her family. Every action done has a consequence in my perspective. A cookie your character gives to a homeless guy just around the corer, is a cookie that could've saved a starving kid down the street. If an action saved a family by sending a villain to prison, but consequently caused the villain's family to fall apart and another villain to be created, was that action good or bad? How do really define a particular action as good or bad, unless you take motivation or demeanor into consideration?

Do note that I did not say saving the wife, or even killing said supervillain was the bad action, but I specifically mentioned the mass slaughter of potentially innocent guards. Whether you side more with Mill's (actions ought to be done so as to produce the maximum happiness) side or are more of a Kantian (inherently right or wrong choices regardless of consequence) that is a selfish and evil action. It's the kind of thing the aforementioned cartoonishly evil villain would do except that because we are following the perspective of the character we don't really care anymore, as we tend to take protagonists to always be "the good guy".

You do have a point though, and hardly is morality ever clear: I would argue, however, that we can draw from collective morality. Generally speaking, committing a major crime of any kind is usually considered an evil action. And doing bad things unecessarily or to someone whom we know doesn't deserve it is usually commonly accepted as evil too. A character action of this type will as you said always be morally ambiguous, but a good test I think, for this type of character is what would happen if you replaced the random goons with two characters you love or what woould happen if the villain was doing these actions instead of the hero?

Furthermore, the audience is only part of the demeanor. The character doesn't necessarily need to come out that way to the audience to fall into the type of character I was referring to, so long as the world they are in still accepts the actions as being good. For example, in a recent anime I am watching one of the villains creates a being whom the characters can see and understand is bringing paradise. I don't mean like a metaphorical paradise here, I mean like a literal paradise, ya'know the eternal happiness of all humanity with no drawback kind. The problem was the being who was doing that happened to be their enemy, and so they butchered it. I personally looked at this and saw the characters stirpping humanity of potential eternal happiness, but the characters themselves acting in self defense and being all chummy team work and power of friendship type not only had good intentions but also were presented with a good demeanor by the story.

it's not the best example, but it's one that came to mind rn, hopefully it's clear enough.

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Do note that I did not say saving the wife, or even killing said supervillain was the bad action, but I specifically mentioned the mass slaughter of potentially innocent guards. Whether you side more with Mill's (actions ought to be done so as to produce the maximum happiness) side or are more of a Kantian (inherently right or wrong choices regardless of consequence) that is a selfish and evil action. It's the kind of thing the aforementioned cartoonishly evil villain would do except that because we are following the perspective of the character we don't really care anymore, as we tend to take protagonists to always be "the good guy".

You do have a point though, and hardly is morality ever clear: I would argue, however, that we can draw from collective morality. Generally speaking, committing a major crime of any kind is usually considered an evil action. And doing bad things unecessarily or to someone whom we know doesn't deserve it is usually commonly accepted as evil too. A character action of this type will as you said always be morally ambiguous, but a good test I think, for this type of character is what would happen if you replaced the random goons with two characters you love or what woould happen if the villain was doing these actions instead of the hero?

Furthermore, the audience is only part of the demeanor. The character doesn't necessarily need to come out that way to the audience to fall into the type of character I was referring to, so long as the world they are in still accepts the actions as being good. For example, in a recent anime I am watching one of the villains creates a being whom the characters can see and understand is bringing paradise. I don't mean like a metaphorical paradise here, I mean like a literal paradise, ya'know the eternal happiness of all humanity with no drawback kind. The problem was the being who was doing that happened to be their enemy, and so they butchered it. I personally looked at this and saw the characters stirpping humanity of potential eternal happiness, but the characters themselves acting in self defense and being all chummy team work and power of friendship type not only had good intentions but also were presented with a good demeanor by the story.

it's not the best example, but it's one that came to mind rn, hopefully it's clear enough.

The question would be, were the guards truly innocent? I mean, they technically played a part in keeping the wife captive, intentionally or not. If the husband explained to the guards that his wife was being kept captive, would the guards just let him walk by? What if killing the guards was the only way to save the wife? Would it be a good action then? From the hero's perspective yes (or possibly no depending on how nice said character is). From the villain's perspective (and those who see things in a wider view) no. For me, I see all actions as gray - a balance of good and bad, which might because my viewpoint tends to lean towards negativity =P. I mean, Jesus is technically a criminal during his time. To his opposers, he was upsurping the 'peace and stability' maintained by the religion of era. Collective morality is a product of it's time...and something that undergoes change with time...so it's not something I put my stock in. I simply have my own morals due to my own experiences. So does everyone else. If the act of saving the wife is good, yet the act of mass slaughter(a byproduct of his actions) bad, then the action, in my viewpoint, becomes somewhere in between...

I think we generally take the protagonist as the 'good guy' because the readers can relate more to their perspective. In stories where both perspectives are played out, good and evil become more ambiguous. Your definition of demeanor did make things clearer, thanks. Indeed, most stories try to push a particular moral. Some readers will bite on to that. Some won't. I do enjoy stories where good and bad aren't clear cut. Where multiple viewpoints are heard. Yet, without the obvious good and bad, there's no side to root for - which for some people, is where their entertainment derives. Also, too many morals and the story might end up becoming a giant mess of ideas that leaves readers confused (unless you like that sort of thing^^)

Eternal happiness is rather boring, and impossible, in my mind =P

 

[Idea]

The question would be, were the guards truly innocent? I mean, they technically played a part in keeping the wife captive, intentionally or not. If the husband explained to the guards that his wife was being kept captive, would the guards just let him walk by? What if killing the guards was the only way to save the wife? Would it be a good action then? From the hero's perspective yes (or possibly no depending on how nice said character is). From the villain's perspective (and those who see things in a wider view) no. For me, I see all actions as gray - a balance of good and bad, which might because my viewpoint tends to lean towards negativity =P. I mean, Jesus is technically a criminal during his time. To his opposers, he was upsurping the 'peace and stability' maintained by the religion of era. Collective morality is a product of it's time...and something that undergoes change with time...so it's not something I put my stock it. I simply have my own morals due to my own experiences. So does everyone else. If the act of saving the wife is good, yet the act of mass slaughter(a byproduct of his actions) bad, then the action, in my viewpoint, becomes somewhere in between...

However, you are mixing the intention of the action with the action itself. Sure, the guy did it to save his wife, but the mass slaughter is still an independent action and the one of focus. Furthermore, I did explicitly remove the possibility of it being necessary. Sure, if it WAS necessary that would be a different story, but that wasn't the case I mentioned.

Eternal happiness is rather boring, and impossible, in my mind =P

It should be noted that this took place where the characters have access to magic and are fighting for the holy grail in a situation where saints get literal advantages, in other words, the existence of God and paradise is pretty much assumed

 

[QuirkyAngel]

However, you are mixing the intention of the action with the action itself. Sure, the guy did it to save his wife, but the mass slaughter is still an independent action and the one of focus. Furthermore, I did explicitly remove the possibility of it being necessary. Sure, if it WAS necessary that would be a different story, but that wasn't the case I mentioned.

True enough.

Mass slaughter is bad. I won't try to defend that. When reading within the context of the situation, I assumed they were the villain's guard's, which would take away innocent portion, but in your intended situation, my morality would say that's bad as well. When and where it could be perceived as good really depends on whether the readers deem the action to be necessary for a greater good. You never said that mass slaught was necessary, but you didn't say it wasn't necessary either. I just meant to point out possibilities in which the particular action could be viewed in a positive manner. An action, without context, is really just an action...which I can't really be judged until more information is given (well no, I suppose it can =P). If there was no mention of the guard's family in the story, readers then are left make guesses. Some will assume yes. Some will assume no. And that will affect whether the action becomes good or bad in the eyes of the reader.

It should be noted that this took place where the characters have access to magic and are fighting for the holy grail in a situation where saints get literal advantages, in other words, the existence of God and paradise is pretty much assumed

Ooooh, are we talking about Fate/Zero, then? I think the grail was corrupted from the start, if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[Idea]

Ooooh, are we talking about Fate/Zero, then? I think the grail was corrupted from the start, if my memory serves me correctly.

Nope, apocrypha. I want to watch zero when i have the time to watch it in one sing. Though despite apocrypha being (I hear) one of the worst installments, it still made me wanna post an interest check for a fate roleplay

 

[QuirkyAngel]

Nope, apocrypha. I want to watch zero when i have the time to watch it in one sing. Though despite apocrypha being (I hear) one of the worst installments, it still made me wanna post an interest check for a fate roleplay

Lol, was the grail destroyed in apocrypha too? I only watched around 10ish episodes (some where around the time team red unleashed their fortress) before taking a break. Couldn't really get into the series :/

 

[Idea]

Lol, was the grail destroyed in apocrypha too? I only watched around 10ish episodes (some where around the time team red unleashed their fortress) before taking a break. Couldn't really get into the series :/

I won't spoil you but the grail had nothing to do with the situation I just described... yet

 

[QuirkyAngel]

I won't spoil you but the grail had nothing to do with the situation I just described... yet

And now I'm tempted to watch it

 

[Umbrie]

a good character can still do the occasional bad thing as a sort of flaw in their character, just as an evil character can do the occasional good thing. in a game on discord, i have a Shrine Maiden who could be considered a generally good person, but she is creepy and offputting to others due to her heavy obsession over a particular childhood friend she follows with the strictest devotion. effectively, her love for this childhood friend literally paints her as a creepy person because of the stuff it motivates her to do. and because she is desperate to impress her;

she otherwise does all sorts of good things, like giving a few medicinal salves to save a child's dying parents or siblings, using potions to save an orphan's life from bandits by enhancing the orphan and offering support fire, and well, sharing a portion of the game she hunts with the local children as to prevent the excess from going to waste.