McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft
Philosophic Discussions for Characters
Quantus:
Occasionally I run across an idea that I'd like to make a core tenant of a given character. But for them to hold up I need the odd sounding board now and then to see if people who think Not Like Me can poke holes agree and/or can reasonably argue against it. Sometimes I have multiple characters discussing such things, and trying to play both sides is like playing chess against yourself (possible but fundamentally unsatisfying).
So if anyone is like me and just needs loaner Minds to kick some abstract ideas around, this can be a place to do it.
Ill start us off:
Stage: Two travelers, both honorable and selfless. Each with what on the surface appear to be fundamentally opposed. The eventual destination would be to explore the places of conflict and to arrive at common ground shared by both philosophies, and a Battle (and accompanying motivations) that both would accept.
Character 1) All motivation comes from a Desire to Protect something, and the "Something" will tell you everything you need to know about a Person. Protect your Honor; Protect your Life; Protect who you Love, or what You've Built. Protect an Idea. Protect a Hope for the Future. Protect that which you Love from The Which you Fear. There is no dishonor in Fear, because Fear becomes Focus
Character 2) All Motivation comes from EITHER Fear or Pleasure, and Fear is a slow toxin. To live your entire life under the Weight of Fear is to miss the whole Point of Life in the first place. There is no dishonor in Fighting for Joy rather than fighting for Fear. Joy of Victory, Joy found in the Peace that comes After, Joy of a Wrong Righted.
The Deposed King:
Character 2 might at first be the most firm and rejecting of character one. but over time would be able to internalize that character one's desire to 'protect' all comes from fear or pleasure. He protects for fear of his own personal loss, the loss of a loved one, the loss of his honor the loss of his etc. And he protects because the act of protecting gives him pleasure.
The other guy would actually reject everything about the philosophy of character 2 but because to him while words are important ultimately actions speak louder than words. So the more he realizes that character 2 talks a big game about seeking after pleasure and the danger of fear, as he sees that what guy actually does he realizes that what this guy actually follows the spirit a code of honor but rejects the letter of the code. Making him more of a Ronin or masterless samuria. A dangerous individual in other words. A lordless man unfettered by strictures he is like a double edged sword, entirely dependent upon the wielder's skill it increases his deadliness but the slighest slip can cause damage. While a man bound by a code is like a single edged sword, still deadly, but with more potential to stop oneself from violating one's own beliefs in a fight of anger or rage. To character 1 codes of honor don't just constrict you they protect you, at least the one's you willingly take upon yourself. Character 2 on the other hand he's more a rebel without a cause doing what he pleases as he pleases and no one else tells him how he should feel, think or act.
Does that help at all.
The one character realizes that despite rejecting everything except for fear and pleasure, underneath it all the other guy actually is honorable. He would have the easier surface acceptance trying to over time convince the other possibly. And the other character utterly rejects the tenants of the first before eventually realizing that the despite all the pretty words about self control and honor and duty and all that, when it comes to crunch time Mr. Protection does the right thing in the end. He still thinks he should loosen up and just admit when he's a secret adrenaline junkie but whatever.
The Deposed King
Griffyn612:
I'll admit, I'm confused. You've already listed the "common ground", which is that "both are honorable and selfless." Under any conflict, if they share these two virtues, they'll find commonality. You have to have one of them not possess one of these virtues to have any real difference. Otherwise you've just got two characters that are going to do the same thing in most scenarios.
Quantus:
These arent primary characters at all, they arent going to get the sort of stage-time that it would take for their own arcs. Their purpose is embody and illustrate their opposing viewpoints, so that the young and sheltered MC who was raised on storybooks can get a look (on of several throughout) that the world is far more complex than he realized and that ideologies can be entirely opposed without one being "Good" and the other "Evil". So while I want the two characters, their opposing viewpoints and debates, to be the vehicle of this and so want them to be living examples of the opposing ideologies, I need their philosophic arguments to be robust enough stand entirely on their own, ideally enough so that the debates end in stalemate. Which is where Im running into trouble, Im not naturally schizophrenic enough to argue with myself to that kind of impasse.
Griffyn612:
--- Quote from: Quantus on June 02, 2017, 01:37:27 PM ---These arent primary characters at all, they arent going to get the sort of stage-time that it would take for their own arcs. Their purpose is embody and illustrate their opposing viewpoints, so that the young and sheltered MC who was raised on storybooks can get a look (on of several throughout) that the world is far more complex than he realized and that ideologies can be entirely opposed without one being "Good" and the other "Evil". So while I want the two characters, their opposing viewpoints and debates, to be the vehicle of this and so want them to be living examples of the opposing ideologies, I need their philosophic arguments to be robust enough stand entirely on their own, ideally enough so that the debates end in stalemate. Which is where Im running into trouble, Im not naturally schizophrenic enough to argue with myself to that kind of impasse.
--- End quote ---
Give me an example. I'm pretty good at looking at both sides of things, to the point I've argued for something enough to convince people of it, only to then argue against it and unconvince them. (Which is as obnoxious as it sounds (
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version