How Would YOU Have Written Statesman?

Then you ignore the very idea of writing characters, as opposed to writing stories that progress those characters. Characters' actions are never "scripted" when they are part of their own personal stories. It's only when characters are ret-conned or "progressed" as a means to set up the next plot point in a story and with little regard towards that character's own story when it's "scripted."

Telling me that my character is afraid of Arbiter Daos and so chooses to be a loyal Arachnos puppy and betray Ghost Widow is scripting MY actions to fit YOUR plot. On the other hand, my depiction of an assassin who hates mages and thus prefers to take missions against the Circle of Thorns is writing a character whose concept dictates the plot of the story. And therein lies the crucial difference that you're just glossing over - the Statesman had his own story, but lost it when he became a plot device. He is no longer a character in his own right. Why NOT kill him, at this point?

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

That's really reaching. If any of our villains is in it for teh Evuls, it's Recluse.

True, but sometimes it takes just a spark to realize something. I wonder if the queen gets upset when someone makes a deck of cards with say, cartoon characters, and her favorite character isn't a queen?

Note also that I can't think of a feasible situation where I'd yell at a grandchild for causing my child's death. Unless it was flat out premeditated murder. That kind of character seems like he's far too distanced from reality to be treated as human. Of course, if statesman realizes this, and feels that he's lost touch with humanity, it might explain him giving away his incarnate powers and allowing himself to be killed. Probably by Recluse.

You do have a point, though. An easy example of a character that's likable is "your double" in Jenni Adair's arc. It's mostly just a narrative "cheat," granted, but it worked for me. Basically, every mission includes something you need to do and something else your double needs to do. In a more traditional game where you're the only competent person in the whole universe, you can count on having to do your bit, your partner messing up and you having to do his bit, as well. Not this time. Your double is capable and even says things like "Don't worry about me, just do this." when engaged in a pretty heated fight. It gives the impression of an NPC helper that, for the first time in the whole damn game, is actually capable enough to not have you babysit him.

Making signature characters into companion NPCs in missions is a TERRIBLE idea. Their pathfinding sucks, their AI is always aggressive... Essentially, you spend half the time going back because the Statesman got hung up on a corner or his feet sank in the floor, or you end up cursing his name because he aggroed three spawns at once. And on top of it all, his powers are magnitudes stronger than your own, so you can essentially lead him on a leash and have him solo the mission for you.

Putting signature characters in the game and subjecting them to objective game mechanics is always a mistake. As far as I'm concerned, they should act as supporting characters and be part of the story arc, not part of the NPC lineup. Not frequently, anyway. Consider the following example:

You are given a sadistic choice: The kind-hearted hero who helped you so far is tied to a bomb on one end of the city and a monster is about to slaughter a school of children on the other side. You can't stop both disasters, and just as things look hopeless, your phone rings and it's the Statesman. He heard about your plight and he can handle the monster while you go save the hero. That way, he's useful, his strengths are put to good use AND you don't have to trip over his broken-AI *** fumbling its way through a mission on the strength of overpowered stats. Everybody wins.

Yes, it's false tension of a sort and yes, it often comes off as contrived, but I still feel it's a good way to involve these guys in storylines without making said storylines ostensibly ABOUT the signature characters. Best of both worlds, as it were.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

The Statesman doesn't *have* anything because he's just a figment that doesn't have free will - the story belongs to the writers and is theirs to do with as they please. Characters *are* ultimately plot devices, perhaps even the best plot devices when used properly. But here we get into semantics that I sense will be a permanent division of opinion.

I have shelves and stacks of writers references, English textbooks, Writer's Markets and a box of Writer's Digests issues that would disagree with you.

If so, then every instance in stories of characters driving a plot forward proves every single one of them wrong.

Your lack of differentiating differentiation disappoints me, grasshopper!

More seriously (though it pains me ), characters make fine plot devices, but you won't pass many exams by confusing or mistaking central characters for plot devices.

Have I ever *not* disappointed?

Even the few textbook definitions I've seen over the years define plot devices as an object or character that moves the plot forward. The difference between the two is moot, though, because literary characters are objects. They are imaginary puppets dancing at the whim of the writer. Any semblance of life they have is manufactured by the puppeteer.

It is a common "What the--?" for beginning writers, but think of plot devices as stepping stones, and primary characters as those leaping forward (through the story) across the stones. In City of Heroes, a defeated enemy mob who drops a tip is a kind of clunky plot device: much like the reluctant tipster caught by Your Friendly Neighborhood Batman at the dead end of a dark alley in a comic book, his only real purpose is easy purchase to the next leg of the story. Your Friendly Neighborhood Batman (and any friends who figure prominently in the story) are not plot devices. While it may be tempting to lob any literary whatsit into that category, it would be no help to dorks who like to sit around and discuss literature, and because they tend to be the ones grading the papers, it's a no-no!

Edit: What's funny though, is I remember, after reading Nausea (Jean-Paul Sartre) a few years ago, I pretty much went around for months seeing the world exactly like your quoted paragraph. I actually got a pass from my English teacher for breaking a few rules--she must have known what I was going through!

I would call those central characters symbiotic plot devices - they often drive the plot forward, but the plot also typically exists for their sake. And sometimes, of course, the plot itself becomes a character device - largely there just to serve as a backdrop/fuel for character development/dialogue.

To be honest, I've used these kinds of self-engineered re-definitions for my own sake in my own writing projects (I'm the kind of guy who starts out messy, but who eventually categorizes and compartmentalizes all the parts of a story, and it helps to see it in whatever way, y'know, helps), but I know from experience that it can induce much face-palming when said out loud to someone who Knows The Rules.

Characters can act as plot devices, but that doesn't mean they ARE plot devices. Characters can move the plot, but the plot doesn't have to move the characters. This is not semantics, you're simply applying a one-way-street relationship in both directions. Yes, the plot CAN control the characters, but that's more the realm of hack writers (One More Day comes to mind) than the realm of good fiction.

A good character has the personality traits of a real person, or what a real person might be if he came from a specific fictional world. A good plot is written around the personality traits of good characters, such that it feels like the characters are moving the plot, as opposed to them being constantly ret-conned and changed to match a narrative.

Yes, ultimately, everything is a literary device to craft a completed work, but the whole point of good writing is to present that as a compelling, believable story. Creating a story with the kind of cynicism you display here is precisely what's responsible for the downward spiral of City of Heroes storytelling. When the writer is convinced that his characters are just plot devices, there to butcher as necessary just to give a gameplay element some basic explanation, then the overall story this writer is in charge of suffers, and suffers terribly.

There is a certain amount of "passion" and "heart" inherent in good stories, a certain feeling that the writer in charge at least somewhat cared about the story on higher level than basic word structure and plot logic, that usually makes it worth reading through. There are some stories that give the impression that their creators were able to suspend their disbelief and see their characters as real people stuck in a real situation, albeit in a fictional world, and it is those stories that come off feeling the most genuine and compelling, at least to me.

At the very basic of levels, the Statesman may be a plot device, but he shouldn't have been treated as one. We don't care about the Statesman as a character because the people writing the story didn't care about the Statesman. They only cared about what the Statesman represented. Jack Emmert may have written him as a mary sue, but at least he gave the guy SOME personality, especially if you read his long backstory.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

What I mostly have to go on in this area is the knowledge of experience. And in the case of literature I much prefer it that way given some of the rules I've been exposed to.

A character has the personality the writer imagines it to have. How the reader relates to those traits - whether they find them to be good, bad, sensible, realistic, etc. - is highly subjective.

And a good writer may be able to hide the strings, but they're still there. You may call that outlook obstinately cynical, but I call it pragmatic.

I do not recall ever seeing a particularly compelling story in the game. Certainly not one compelling enough for me to specifically recall it. I have a sense that I kind of enjoyed the Faultline story arcs somewhere along the line...

The strength of art is the suspension of disbelief. I call your outlook cynical not to insult your intelligence, but to criticise you insistence on disbelieving. No story can ever be good if you deconstruct it into its component parts. It's worse still when you disregard intent all but completely, and the author's intent matters. What story is this person trying to tell? What is the message behind it all, the emotion at the end of the tunnel? These things matter.

I recall the something the Spoony One once said: "At Wrestlemania, magic happens!" This is in relation to how events at a large, climax show don't always make sense even within the wrestling company's own continuity and storyline, but because it's such a strong performance and something the audience either really wants to see or is really afraid could happen that it comes off as exciting as it is. A cynic would say that it's all scripted, and it is. It's theatre. A cynic would also say that it doesn't make sense that the Undertaker could get up after being hit with a Pedigree four times when in a regular match, one would be enough to knock him out, this proving the storytelling contradicts itself, and it does. But that's where the magic comes into play - it's such a powerful climax that the emotion of it makes such details irrelevant.

There is a very, VERY real difference between a character handled with dignity and respect and written to expand this character's personality... And a character used as a plot device, re-written to fill in plot holes and bastardised into something completely different just to serve a narrative purpose. You can call it what you choose, but that difference will always be there, and that's the difference which decides whether people care about a character or dismiss him as a plot device. Maybe you simply don't care either way, and that's just fine, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to care about characters as a general thing.

To each his own. I'm not a fan of Faultline, personally, but I really enjoyed:

World Wide Red for the complexity of events and the grandeur of the plan.

Division: Line for its subversion of the classic "evil aliens" trope. Granted, it had a greater impact when the Rikti never talked.

The Eternal Nemesis for the way it manages to put Nemesis over Strong, having him lose but nevertheless still win. To this day, he's the only character that does this, and as such deserves a miracle excuse.

Corporate Culture for depicting both Crey and the Freakshow in a much less cartoony light, showing us that both these groups are ruthless killers.

The Library of Souls because it's mired in ancient lore, divine legend and fantastic history that spans nearly the whole width of the game.

Time After Time for putting our player characters over incredibly strongly. A world laid to waste by the action of a single player villain, a confrontation with Recluse and the service of a previous Patron. Amazing!

The Horrors of War for being the massive, impressive climax of an entire storyline and for having a very satisfying, very solid conclusion.

Oh Wretched Man for its amazing writing and introspective character development. It makes both Pia Marino and Ghost Widow appear sympathetic and Wretch appear tragic when all could have been two-dimensional.

I could go on, but I realise that's not the point. My point here, however, is that I appreciate good writing where it shows up, and I want to care about the characters I share a story with, be they my allies or my enemies. These stories are much of what inspired me to write in the first place.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Deconstructing a story doesn't affect my belief in it any more than knowing the outcome affects my enjoyment. If the character's are believable from my perspective, then they are. If a story is enjoyable, then I enjoy it. I like muppets even when I can see the hand-sticks.

And while it's not particularly "compelling", IMO, I'm enjoying the SSA. Despite the fact that it's seemed a bit contrived and occasionally it seems pointless that my character is involved at all.

Oh, and unless the author directly tells you their intent it's nothing more than immaterial supposition. And even if an author tells me their intent it has little to do with whether I like their story. A chef's intent to serve me a delicious meal doesn't make their shoe leather any more palatable.

I can care about a plot device, if it's written in such a way that I like it. One of my favourite Dragonlance characters is somewhat literally a deus ex machina. There's nothing inherently bad about being a plot device.

All of this over the simple fact that fictional characters don't really make decisions or create dialogue.

P.S.: Wasn't insulted in the least. But I will blither on in these sorts of back-and-forths with little encouragement.

Then who would villains fight and plot against?

There needs to be a visible, active NPC hero group for that antagonist/protagonist thingy to happen.