Before I begin, I should probably start with a little bit of information about myself. As someone who's been writing for about 16 or 17 years now, eight of which have involved on and off roleplaying, I thought I'd share a little bit of the wisdom I've accrued in those years. While I have met a lot of people with very interesting ideas (quite a few with ideas better than mine), I've also met a few with some...well, they certainly are interesting ideas, but implemented very poorly. As such, I'd like to have a sit and impress upon you my two biggest personal pet peeves in regards to character creation.

First, let's start off with the most common one I've seen, and an archetype that I, myself, am guilty of using at least once in my life: The Traumatized, Chaotic Good Vigilante. Not that it's a bad archetype, especially because the best example of it is none other than the Dark Knight, himself. What gets my goat, however, is the way I usually see it applied.

Some people tend to forget that they're supposed to be designing a character with a trauma, not a trauma with a character. Yes, trauma scars the psyche and the character can never really forget that it happened, but it shouldn't be what defines them. They had a personality before, so why are they suddenly cold, unfeeling, angsty murder machines now? Where was the transition?

More importantly, however, it's not realistic. Someone who constantly ruminates on past traumas, kicking themselves for things they could have done, and otherwise reinforcing their victim complex will eventually develop a neurosis in the form of extreme anxiety and paranoia. A healthy character (not necessarily a good one) will have found a way to accept what happened and not let it define who they are. Victimhood is a choice, and they choose to be who they are. Either condition is an interesting route to develop a character, feel free to try one!

The second character design choice that irks me most is what I like to call "Tumblr Tokenism". As someone who lasted just over two years on that wretched site, I saw plenty of examples of this. What is it? Essentially, like the pet peeve above, their character was based upon one single idea. In this case, however, it was their identity.

In my honest opinion, when someone asks you to describe your character, the adjectives that you supply should not have anything to do with sexuality, gender, or race. What effect does that have on their character? What is so interesting about them being gay/bi/trans/agender/black/latino/etc? Why don't you tell me what their favorite color is? Their favorite hobby? What they do for a living? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What are their aspirations in life?

Don't get me wrong, a character's identity is an important part of their character, but it shouldn't be a selling point. Create an interesting character first, THEN decide on their identity. If it's common sense that judging a character on the color of their skin or the sex they're attracted to or the gender they identify as is wrong, then why are you making such a big deal out of the color of their skin or the sex they're attracted to or the gender they identify as? Of course, if you're trying to tell a story of discrimination, then there's an obvious exception in that sexuality, gender, and race does matter.

Outside of that, though, your character's identity should be the least interesting thing about them. Collective identities do not exist, and those who identify as something don't always share the same experiences. First and foremost, your character is an individual, and if you want to write a more than one note character, then you'll treat them as such.

Anyway, that's all that I have for now. Thanks for reading! Give a brohoof if you enjoyed this or leave a comment if you have questions!