McAnally's (The Community Pub) > Author Craft

Need help

<< < (2/2)

Koskian:
I feel like if your character is prevented in protecting and then again in avenging his king, you run the risk of him looking incompetent, stupid, or pushing a series of events that could come off as awkward. It feels more natural to me if there are unknown circumstances to the king's death which cause him to not pursue vengeance or leave him with no clue of who was responsible.  As someone else mentioned in this thread, maybe he saw a reason for the king's death to be necessary, maybe the king killed himself and everyone just assumed an assassin got to him. Perhaps the king's death was someone else's fault and he was trying to protect them.

What if instead of being pushed into exile for failing to avenge his king, what if it is a self imposed exile. He is expected to get revenge, so he sets out on his journey, but knowing that vengeance can't be attained he vows to never return.

Rasins:
During the Battle, he was charged (with others) to protect the king.  However one of his fellow guards fell, and he dashed to pull him back.  While doing that, the enemy got to the king and killed him.  He was the last guard to survive, so no one else was able to tell the others what happened, branding him a coward.  The Heir denies his pleas to seek vengeance against the enemy, due to his obvious cowardice.  The Heir banishes him beyond the reach and ability to seek to avenge his King's death.

TheJrade:
You might look into the historical story of the Spartan Dilios, whom you may remember as the eyepatched storyteller of the movie 300.

If you are not setting your character up to have as tragic an end as Dilios, you should be sure to write in a reason as to why he does not commit suicide-by-headlong charge.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page