How to make a goodie-goodie character complex, deep, and interesting?

Harlequin said:

Vash is wonderful. Another excellent old school anime.

Click to expand...

Vash is a great character. He's also a great example of a hero's virtues being inextricably tied in with his weaknesses and faults. He's so committed to not killing anyone that he will endanger himself (and sometimes his friends) in order to avoid bloodshed. And when he is finally and inevitably forced to choose between killing an aggressor and letting his friends die, he does what he has to and then afterward has a near-mental-breakdown and crumples into a little ball of guilt.

His idealism can be endearing and inspiring but also infuriating; he can be brave and selfless but also rigidly short-sighted (and even if he hasn't led a sheltered life in the traditional sense of the word, you could argue that his unusually high power-level is the only reason he can only afford to have such lofty ideals in a brutal, dog-eat-dog world). He's actually a great example of a "goodie-good" character who's complex and interesting, because "good" is, itself, a complicated and many-sided concept.

Amen. ;-)

I didn't want to launch into praise of Vash because I could be here all day. But he is wonderful. And one of the things subtly addressed in anime is that he can only be as pacifistic as he is, by dint of having superpowers.

Yet that doesn't stop him trying to convert others to his pacifism. Which he does, in Wolfwood, who is a very good gunfighter but still merely human (Vash isn't human).

So wolfwood dies for the ideals vash insisted others adopt, because pacifism isn't a choice humans can afford to make on their planet.

Superman is a shallow wanker who should retire immediately.

Addendum... The point about Vash isn't that he's actually perfect. Because he is not.

The point is that he tries to be. And the consequences of that goal/ideology as a result.

I have a problem with the idea that people have to be kickass fighters and unpleasant/damaged/emotionally dark people to be interesting. Survival, even in a low-tech world, often has more to do with intelligence and flexible thinking than brawn (especially for women).

And an essentially good person doesn't have to be 'goodie', they can be cheerful, well-meaning and empathetic while still having a temper or weaknesses. And a quiet, mainly happy life doesn't mean it they didn't face hardships and pain. Everyone does.

Harlequin said:

A good character can struggle, and I'd argue that goodness can be a flaw--often is, in fact.

Being good essentially got Helen killed, in Jane Eyre. Roundabout way but she could not survive in the real world, and didn't.

Click to expand...

Goodness in the sense of naivety can indeed be a flaw. Jane is flawed but a 'good person'- in a way, it's a bit of an odd term because we don't go around thinking that a certain person is morally good. Some people might be particularly kind, helpful, loyal, whatever, but in most cases you respect them for their individual traits rather than them being morally exemplary.

I think that dark characters are appealing because they rebel and do the things we would never do. It's the novel as a sort of safe space. However this type of character is so frequent now that people start to get sick of it.

No magic! ;-) Just writing out plot points and big interactions in a logical summary for yourself. A reminder for what's happend and the chain of cause-and-effect.

Emma Darwin's got a good breakdown with some tips/exercises: http://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/2016/07/please-dont-hate-me-for-loving-synopses.html

How to make a goodie character interesting? The same way you do with any character.

Make how they interact with others interesting, namely those who might not share their views, or even have similar yet warped views to their own.

A good example is Bilbo Baggins, and how he bounces off the dwarves's personnas. He may remain goody goody for the most part, but the way he behaves with some subtle exhaustion shows that his goodie goodieness is under strain, which is a source of intrigue by turning the character into a rock being pummeled by waves. The waves shape the rock, but the rock breaks the waves, how much to each is dependent on which is more resilient.

How to make a good character interesting?

Give her a massive temptation. It becomes like Chekhov's gun, the reader hopes that eventually she'll give in and explore the transforming thing she resisted for so long.

The one thing I would give her is a sense of what is right and wrong, but it is not just that she feels that way, it is that she has a religious or moral belief that prevents her from doing something. Treat it as a handicap which makes it frustrating for those around her. Give her something that she has to do which would mean breaking her beliefs, but would ultimately be the right thing to do. Internal conflict would be a great way to bring tension to the novel.

There have already been some great things said here, but my two cents would be to have that character become interested in something. This all ties back to growth. So you have have a goody-goody but through the course of adventure the character is exposed to new situations/peoples/etc - they'd have to be or it wouldn't be an adventure! - so something new can rub off on them. This could be an object, an idea, a person, a methodology. It basically challenges the current way of life/thinking and now you can have a character who's still lawful good but someone who's also exploring something new. You're adding to their identity which is pretty interesting.

Lady Ice said:

Goodness in the sense of naivety can indeed be a flaw. Jane is flawed but a 'good person'- in a way, it's a bit of an odd term because we don't go around thinking that a certain person is morally good. Some people might be particularly kind, helpful, loyal, whatever, but in most cases you respect them for their individual traits rather than them being morally exemplary.

I think that dark characters are appealing because they rebel and do the things we would never do. It's the novel as a sort of safe space. However this type of character is so frequent now that people start to get sick of it.

Click to expand...

Let's look at another "Jane," in Pride and Prejudice. She's presented by the author as entirely admirable - EXCEPT that she's so naïve she can be fooled, and nearly loses her soulmate because she's not even aware how she'd being manipulated. Even when she learns how she was, she won't stand up for herself. On the other hand, her innate faith in the goodness of human nature also lets her see D'Arcy more clearly than Lizzie does at first.

She's perhaps not at interesting as Lizzie, but she makes an excellent foil for her.

Even goodie-goodies make mistakes sometimes.

blackcat777 said:

One thing my character does is always say no and stand her ground.

Click to expand...

Rather than a flaw that requires you to add to her current personality, how about using what you've got? The above trait is admirable... but not always. If she takes this trait to its extreme, it could be extremely damaging.

So, have her take it to the extreme and it causes damage (preferably to someone she loves) -- which results in guilt, shame, regret, etc. and her second-guessing herself next time a similar situation comes up. This mistake colors everything she does in the future.