Homepage
Login
New Post
Profile
In this world, there are mortals (human beings) and divine beings (gods/goddess). The gods and goddess have personalities, limitations, and what is commonly called "human nature" (they don't know everything, they screw up, etc.), with one rather notable exception: Whatever their particular "area" is, they are good at it and by nature avoid, abhor, and have no inclination towards the associated vice. So, for example, a goddess of wisdom would make very thoughtful and wise decisions (though that doesn't always mean the "right" ones, as the gods are limited by what they know and don't know, etc.) and would be very unlikely to do anything that would be foolish given what she knows at any given time, because being foolish is not in her nature.
My problem is that I have one of these gods (albeit one stuck in a powerless mortal form for the moment) as a part of my main cast. This one's area is "courage." So theoretically, this person would be naturally inclined to avoid doing anything cowardly, in fact, the cowardly thought processes that would lead to cowardly behavior wouldn't occur for them. Cowardice is not an option. (Also, since "courage" is the balance between cowardice and recklessness, then theoretically reckless behavior should be off the table as well?) I've realized that, practically speaking, this would mean: No avoiding problems or pretending they don't exist because they scare you. No being dishonest with other people out of fear they will judge you. No running away from your problems at all, really. And what is it interesting characters seem to do a LOT? Avoid problems, pretend they don't exist, run away from them before later on in the story realizing they need to step up and face them anyway.
Can a character with no inclination towards any form of cowardice still be a well-rounded character who does interesting things within the plot, instead of a boring/annoying goody-two-shoes? Or have I eliminated far too large a source of character flaws and mistakes to recover from?
I had considered making cowardice their only antithesis, and giving them an inclination towards recklessness as a result, but I'm not sure I like the gimick-y way that could turn out, or the kind of person said character would be in that instance.
Edit: To potentially help those forming answers, here is a definition of the virtue of "courage":
miriam webster defines courage as "mental or moral strength to venture, persevere, and withstand danger, fear, or difficulty" and google search of the definition results in "the ability to do something that frightens one" or "strength in the face of pain or grief."
(8)More posts by @Lengel543
8 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
No, it is is by no means inevitable that by eliminating any one - or set of, including all - flaw, you end up with a boring character.
If what you're am asking is what flaws, make a person interesting and well/rounded then why not alter the Question to reflect that?
Also, since "courage" is the balance between cowardice and recklessness, then theoretically reckless behavior should be off the table as well?
That is a very nuanced version of courage. A more basic description is "willingness to do 'the right thing' regardless of consequence". Which does not remotely rule out recklessness, short-sightedness, or lack of concern for collateral damage.
Look, I've done time in a combat zone, and I've seen courage in action. It's quite remarkable how often it's indistinguishable from stupidity.
If you use the definition of courage as seeing the danger clearly and still doing what one must, there is no problem.
Your character can simply accept the danger and move through it - and such need not be dull.
If you remove (or temporarily disable this virtue, which is his province) what is left? Do you have a well rounded character or johnny one note?
Your description of your pantheon brings to mind the Norse and Greek gods, all of whom were supreme in their discipline but had many other aspects.
If we supposed that Ares, trapped in purely human form, could not exercise his powers, he would still make a fine warrior or leader.
Consider putting your character into situations where what makes the character interesting is not the character's courage.
Consider:
How would an irredeemably courageous hero handle the trolley problem?
A dastardly villain has trapped the hero on a runaway trolley. There is no way to derail or stop the trolley. If the trolley maintains its course it will run over and kill a victim. The hero can change the trolley's course, but then it will run over and kill 5 victims. No matter what choice the hero makes someone will die.
The hero being courageous will make a decision, and will feel confident in that decision. Maybe the hero leaves the trolley as is because sparing 5 lives at the cost of 1 life is somehow in line with his ethics. Maybe the hero diverts the trolley because the 1 life is his crush and he thinks that person will fall in love with him if saved.
Either way someone will die and the hero being a hero will be sad. The hero has to live with this sadness. The hero might have to meet the families of those who have died no matter how much he doesn't want to. The thought of not meeting with those families never occurs to him. He has to get up the next day and wear a brave face in public not because he wants to but because he doesn't know how not to.
Courage isn't a lack of fear. Nor is cowardice the presence of fear. Courage is going through the motions anyway despite being afraid because that's what needs to be done.
I can see this character running across hot coals to achieve his goal. Crying in pain. Cursing and complaining through it the whole time. Hating every second of the trial, but going through with it anyway because he feels it is what needs to be done. He isn't capable of letting fear or pain stop him from doing it. And this makes him interesting.
The character is allowed to experience fear, and to make decisions based on that fear, but cannot let his fear make the decisions for him.
"Why are you crying? I thought you were the god of courage?"
"I am the god of courage, sniffle but getting struck by lightning sucks."
I agree with a lot of what @seallussus said. Let me just add some thoughts.
Just because a character has one great virtue -- courage, in this example -- doesn't mean he can't be flawed in many other ways.
I was amused that @seallussus mentioned Hamlet and I was thinking of the very same character. If you haven't read the play, you might read it. Hamlet is not particularly a paragon of courage, I mean, the point of the story isn't how brave he is. But he's an excellent example here because he faces many problems, none of which have anything to do with lack of courage. He wants to avenge his father's death, he's prepared to go up against the king himself to avenge his father's death. But he doesn't, not because of a lack of courage, but because he isn't sure of the king's guilt.
A person who has perfect courage could still have difficulties for all sorts of reasons.
Lack of information: He would bravely fight anyone to avenge a wrong ... but he doesn't know who the guilty person is.
Moral challenges: Sure, he'll face any danger to achieve his goals. But his goals are morally questionable, and ultimately he realizes this and struggles. For example, he faces many dangers in a pursuit of power and wealth, but at some point he asks himself, Am I right to pursue power and wealth so ruthlessly? I've killed people just because they stood in the way of me becoming king (or whatever). Did they deserve to die for challenging my ambition? Or maybe something less dramatic depending on the context, but same idea.
Complexity: Many problems cannot be solved by the application of raw courage. If you can't get your car to start, the problem is probably not that you aren't brave enough. It may be that you don't have the knowledge, maybe you don't have the skill, the right tools, etc.
It occurs to me that a story about a character with perfect courage could be an interesting vehicle to discuss just what perfect courage is and its role in achieving objectives. You mentioned a balance between cowardice and recklessness. A character with perfect courage might nevertheless struggle with where the balance falls. Maybe some times he takes unnecessary risks because he prides himself on his courage and is unwilling to back down. Or maybe, especially on one crucial instance, he overcompensates and backs down from a fight because he doesn't want to be reckless. Etc. Likewise, you could portray when he can solve problems by rushing full steam ahead and taking on any danger, versus when he tries this and fails anyway because the problem cannot be solved by being courageous, it calls for intelligence or diplomacy or whatever. Indeed, courage could be a liability at times, if it leads you to try to solve a problem with violence or assertiveness, and this backfires and leads the other side to fight back, but a more diplomatic approach might have succeeded. Etc.
Your character is not very smart.
/If you can keep your head while all others around you are losing theirs—get somebody to explain the situation to you.
In conclusion, the funny response to the beginning of Rudyard Kipling’s poem was created by an anonymous individual by 1935. Bob Rigley received credit by February 1939. Variants have entered circulation over the years./
source
It is easy to be brave when you don't understand what is going on. Or do not fully think through the consequences of what you are about to do. A guy like this is useful because when you wind him up and point him in the right direction, he will go. He needs a handler who can take some care with the pointing piece.
Think about Asimov's Laws of Robotics that make them perfectly safe and predictable, but then has stories where they mess up in "unexpected" ways. IOW, he predicted computer programming.
Your character is affected by his mortal form. This includes limited knowledge and capability, and perhaps his learned behavior does not follow due to changes in assumptions; e.g. broken bones and general mortality will now affect his decisions in ways they did not matter before.
How is the new feature of personal damage, to the point of being un-recoverable, going to weigh in on the decision? This was never a concern before, so he may be paralyzed not knowing how to understand personal risk.
I will treat them as a science based question rather than opinion bases, I'm sure some might say that, and consider your question to be the following:
What are the consequence of having a character exemplify courage defined in this way?
And your second question: would a courageous character limit my ability to write an interesting story.?
The problem with the second question is that it does not belong here. But I will give them a try.
Self doubt or anxiety. You thought that removing cowardice made a decisive and strong and brave character. Welcome to the quagmire of the human mind. Even if your protagonist is brave and bold and always ready to do the right thing. They can still be plagued by your garden variety self doubt or have deeper issues.
Let me give you a simple example. Stark is incapable of being a coward. He then is presented with this a thief is caught. Does he imprison him? Investigate? Kill him? Force him to serve for a time to attune for his actions? A man is accused of murder and the evidence in inconclusive.
Heck. His our lord had risen up against the king in open rebellion. What oath does he honor?
Lack of information. Remember the murder example from above? Good. That is the case here. The evidence is really split in the middle. Your guy is the bravest soul and he might be even totally honorable. But he simply does not know what is the correct course of action.
Pretend. You know what they say. It is not a lie if you believe it. If your guys thinks that joining lord Magnar is better that lord Willian then he is bravery bound to follow Magnar. Never mind he believes that because he is his drinking buddy.
Real consequences. Because he cant shut his mouth or stop being brave. The story can be just about that. He could be an almost outcast. He can't have friends as he is always saying the truth and right thing. He can't have a girl because that dress does make her look fat. His parents are sick of his trait and while they love him they wish if he could be silent and not voice his damn opinions...etc. Even in other things. He can't trade and at the last tournament he lost because he was dared to joust without armor. Notice I had to say that he is incapable of shutting up. Much like the US constitution's 5th amendment you can simply shut up. So if he can shut up but has to act bravely then you can still make him really suffer.
Hamlet. Exemplify a lot of what I'm saying. Someone said about it that it is the tragedy of a moral man in an amoral time. Which I'm sure that once you hear the quote it all clicks. And I'm sure you read Hamlet so no need to go there. Just remember how he suffers because he is loyal to his father? How he suffers because he is of such intelligence that he appears larger than even the play? How he truly suffers once he says what he says to Ophelia? Even how he suffers as he is dallying in doing the right thing.
Mental illness. What could possibly go wrong?
Forces of antagonism. Just have him face outside problems. The Aeniad or Beowulf or many other stories don't have to delve too deeply into internal things. He can just be about fighting aliens and robots or whatever.
procrastination. There is nothing in the courage part about doing that right now. To quote the great Gumball Watterson "You call it laziness, I call it the law of conservation of energy" You can have him be the greatest most heroic hero of his time and he still prefers to sit on the couch and binge watch Netflix. If that is not the most relatable hero of all time and the perfect exemplification of our generation or modern times I don't know what is.
Honestly I really believe in the old adage of: It is in the execution.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © selfpublishingguru.com2024 All Rights reserved.