Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:story.character [2025-09-25 15:55:23] – [Core Characterization] ninjasr
+++ lb:story.character [2025-09-29 08:37:43] (current) – [Character] ninjasr
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Character ======
+{{template>opening-box|content=Characters are [[lb:story.element\|elements]] within a story which have agency.}}
+Though, for the sake of simplicity, human-shaped elements can also be referred to as ‘characters’ despite that being imprecise.
 <WRAP centeralign>
-Characters are [[lb:story.element|elements]] within a story which have agency.
+<wrap deleted-link>[[playground:wnotes:character.reference]]</wrap>
 </WRAP>
-Though, for the sake of simplicity, human-shaped elements can also be referred to as ‘characters’ despite that being imprecise.
 {{tag>story_theory}}
 ===== Elaboration =====
@@ Line 14: / Line 15: @@
 ==== Core Characterization ====
 I'm working off of the //[[lb:cod]]// to determine this, though I've already diverged in a few key ways. The ideal ‘character structure’ looks like this:
-  * Anchor (or Virtue)
+  * Core (or Anchor/Virtue)
-  * Vice
+  * Crack (or Vice)
   * Traits
   * Perspectives
@@ Line 21: / Line 22: @@
   * Attributes
   * Motivation(s)
-The ‘**Anchor**’ or ‘**Virtue**’ (if you prefer to stick to [[lb:cod|CoD]] terminology)((:fn:>The reason I prefer to use ‘Anchor’ rather than ‘Virtue’ is that virtue implies something a little different.\\ The CoD rules also define what virtue //is// differently than I do and I believe it's less useful for defining characters.)) I define as the ‘default state’. Basically: no matter what choice is presented to a character, they're likely to go ahead with one based on their anchor.\\
+The ‘**Core**’, or ‘**Anchor**’((:fn:>Anchor is the term I originally used before I came to favor ‘core’.)) or ‘**Virtue**’ (if you prefer to stick to [[lb:cod|CoD]] terminology)((:fn:>The reason I prefer to use ‘Core’ rather than ‘Virtue’ is that virtue implies something a little different.\\ The CoD rules also define what virtue //is// differently than I do and I believe it's less useful for defining characters.)) I define as the ‘default state’. Basically: no matter what choice is presented to a character, they're likely to go ahead with one based on their core.\\
-The ‘**Vice**’ is a critical character flaw which is like the easy way out. If presented with choices where this vice comes into play, the character is strongly motivated to choose the one that aligns with their vice.\\
+The ‘**Crack**’ or ‘**Vice**’ is a critical character flaw which is like the easy way out. If presented with choices where this crack comes into play, the character is strongly motivated to choose the one that aligns with their crack.\\
-‘**Traits**’ is where all the flavoring for a character goes and it can be as detailed or simple (or non-existent) as desired. However, the traits should ideally flow //from// the Anchor/Vice. They //can// conflict but they don't have to. I'd also place things like occupation and hobbies here.\\
+‘**Traits**’ is where all the flavoring for a character goes and it can be as detailed or simple (or non-existent) as desired. However, the traits should ideally flow //from// the Core/Crack. They //can// conflict but they don't have to. I'd also place things like occupation and hobbies here.\\
 ‘**Perspectives**’ is whatever the character thinks about various things. I'd consider this one optional, though it can help in further defining a character and figuring out how they respond to certain things. This includes self-image, politics, philosophy and so on.\\
 The ‘**Relationships**’ is also optional and simply defines their relationships with other characters. It's similar to Perspectives, but more focused on other characters.\\
@@ Line 29: / Line 30: @@
 ‘**Motivations**’ is based around the character's goals. These are the most fluid part of the character, as they can change more often than any other part of them.
-The Anchor and Vice should be defined using a single word (such as ‘Duty’ and ‘Pride’) though I don't think there's an issue with using multiple (‘Duty’/‘Honesty’). The only risk is it becoming incoherent. It also really doesn't matter what it is (though adjectives are better) as long as //you// know what it means and can explain it.\\
+The Core and Crack should be defined using a single word (such as ‘Duty’ and ‘Pride’) though I don't think there's an issue with using multiple (‘Duty’/‘Honesty’). The only risk is it becoming incoherent. It also really doesn't matter what it is (though adjectives are better) as long as //you// know what it means and can explain it.\\
-**Another thing to keep in mind is this**: while I'm using the words ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice’ that doesn't necessarily mean the Anchor has to //be positive// or always //manifest positively// (and vice-versa for vice, pun unintended).\\
+**Another thing to keep in mind is this**: while I'm using the words ‘Virtue’ and ‘Vice’ that doesn't necessarily mean the Core has to //be positive// or always //manifest positively// (and vice-versa for vice, pun unintended).\\
 The virtue ‘duty’ could result in a character betraying a friend, for example. The vice ‘greed’ might result in them demanding to be fairly compensated.\\
 The Anchor and Vice don't even necessarily have to conflict. They could be in concord. Or reversed. Maybe a character's Anchor is something like ‘Sadistic’ while their vice is ‘charitable’.
@@ Line 37: / Line 38: @@
 These ones only have the Anchor, Vice and a few traits defined, to show just how minimal the system can get.
 <WRAP container thirds>
 <WRAP card>
 ^  Irina                    ^^
-|      **Anchor** | Dutiful  |
+|      **Core** | Dutiful  |
-|        **Vice** | Pride    |
+|     **Crack** | Pride    |
 ^  Traits                   ^^
 |  **Occupation** | Soldier  |
@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 <WRAP card>
 ^  Jonathan                 ^^
-|      **Anchor** | Dutiful  |
+|      **Core** | Dutiful  |
-|        **Vice** | Pride    |
+|     **Crack** | Pride    |
 ^  Traits                   ^^
 |  **Occupation** | Lawyer   |
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 <WRAP card>
 ^  Shirley                   ^^
-|      **Anchor** | Honesty   |
+|      **Core** | Honesty   |
-|        **Vice** | Cowardice |
+|        **Crack** | Cowardice |
 ^  Traits                    ^^
 |  **Occupation** | Waitress  |
 </WRAP>
 </WRAP>
 All of these should already give a pretty good picture of how they may act in a certain situation.\\
 For example, let's take Irina. Let's say that she was given an order. Due to her duty, she's likely to accept that order. But what if it's to clean the toilet? Well, in that case she's likely to object due to her Pride. She's also likely to take comparisons between herself and others very seriously, either boosting or damaging her ego in the process. However, if she's told to do something illegal and degrading for the sake of boosting her career...she's likely to refuse and report it, because her duty makes her unwilling to do something illegal and her pride makes her unwilling to do anything degrading.\\
-Jonathan has the same Anchor and Vice as Irina, but it is likely to manifest very differently in his position as a lawyer. For example, rather than being willing to follow orders (the law), he might feel that it's his duty to do whatever he can for his client, but his pride makes him unwilling to admit that. His pride also makes him unwilling to lose any cases he takes.\\
+Jonathan has the same Core and Crack as Irina, but it is likely to manifest very differently in his position as a lawyer. For example, rather than being willing to follow orders (the law), he might feel that it's his duty to do whatever he can for his client, but his pride makes him unwilling to admit that. His pride also makes him unwilling to lose any cases he takes.\\
-Shirley is a radically different character and you'll notice that in her capacity as a waitress, her vice will rarely if ever turn up. But if her restaurant were to be attacked by an armed robber, she'd be one of the first to run away...or she may feel compelled to listen to the armed robber to avoid getting hurt. Her honesty could also manifest as her being insensitive to customers.
+Shirley is a radically different character and you'll notice that in her capacity as a waitress, her crack will rarely if ever turn up. But if her restaurant were to be attacked by an armed robber, she'd be one of the first to run away...or she may feel compelled to listen to the armed robber to avoid getting hurt. Her honesty could also manifest as her being insensitive to customers.
 I think the flexibility of this system speaks for itself. Additional traits (like chatty, air-headed or aggressive) help to flavor the character and to differentiate them further from each-other. Maybe Irina is also air-headed and aggressive, compared to Jonathan who is polite and patient.