I'm basically having trouble creating the personality of my main protagonist. I have tried thinking of how the environment he grew up with would affect his personality, but I am still drawing blanks for the most part. However, I have managed to come up with the fact that he doesn't easily trust people as he grew up in the city slums. Additionally, he is extremely protective of his mother because she is his only family and the slums can be very dangerous. Yet, that is where I draw blanks. Overall, I was wondering if anyone had any advice for how they created the personalities of their own characters.
I've actually written a few times this week about how I do this The three general principles that I picked up from a Great Course lecture are Imagination vs. Observation: How much do you skew towards inventing your characters from whole cloth, and how much do you skew towards basing them on other people (either real or fictional)? I myself tend to lean towards about 90-95% Imagination, while my father leans more towards 70% Observation. Psychological vs. Circumstantial: How much do you focus on what makes your character individually unique, and how much do you focus on the ways that they've been molded by the world around them? This one I tend to aim as close to 50/50 as possible: I think that looking at a character's Nature and their Nurture is more valuable than focusing on just one or the other. Inside-Out vs. Outside-In: How much do you start with a character's values and motivations and use that to build their behaviors and mannerisms, and how much do you start with a character's behaviors and mannerisms and use that to determine their values and motivations? This one, I tend to jump back-and-forth from one extreme to the other over the course of a single story: I start out with a basic plot nugget, and I fill in a cast of characters who perform that plot in a way that I think is interesting (outside-in) Every new idea that I come up with for my characters' actions forces me to rethink their psychologies (outside-in), and every new idea that I come up with for their psychologies forces me to rethink their actions (inside-out) By the time I finish the first draft, there is so much more focus on why they're doing things than there is on what they're doing and how they're doing it, even though that's nowhere near what I started with. Where do you think you might fit best on each of these axes? What would you say you've been trying so far on each? What do you think you might like to try doing differently? ... More specifically (and controversially), a lot of writers despise personality profiling systems with every fiber of their beings, but I've had great luck using them, and I'm wondering if you might be able to The two systems that have worked the best for me the longest are Myers Briggs Are you more asocial (I for Introvert) or more social (E for Extravert)? Are you more theoretically-minded (N for iNtuitor) or more practically-minded (S for Sensor)? Are you more insensitive (T for Thinker) or more sensitive (Feeler)? Are you more disorganized (P for Perceiver) or more organized (J for Judger)? And D&D Alignment Are you extremely authoritarian (Lawful), neither extremely authoritarian nor extremely antiauthoritarian (Neutral), or extremely antiauthoritarian (Chaotic)? Are you extremely moral (Good), neither extremely moral nor extremely immoral (Neutral), or extremely immoral (Evil)? Spoiler: Personal examples I myself am a Chaotic Neutral INTP: antiauthoritarian, neither a saint nor a sociopath, asocial, theoretical, insensitive, disorganized My MC is Neutral Evil ISTJ: she's neither authoritarian nor antiauthoritarian, a sociopath, asocial, practical, insensitive, organized My narrator is Lawful Evil ESFP: he's authoritarian, sociopathic, social, practical, sensitive, disorganized. Together, the 16 MyersBriggs types and the 9 Alignments multiply out to 144 combinations, each of which can instantly be compared and contrasted on 6 different points: I generally hate the idea of The Rules, but my MC is more pragmatically ambivalent about The Rules, and my narrator loves the idea of The Rules Neither myself, my MC, nor my MC are saints, but they're both sociopaths while I am not My narrator is a people person, but my MC and I are not I love playing around with abstract ideas, but my narrator and MC both focus on what they're doing in the moment. My narrator wears his heart on his sleeve, but my MC and I do not My MC is very methodical, but my narrator and I are more loose and spontaneous Do either of these systems look like they could give you ideas for which characters act/think in which ways? How each charcater could be similar and how each could be different?
Your response had given me a lot a consider. Regarding the three principles, I would say that I concentrate more on imagination, circumstantial, and inside-out. How would you suggest trying out their opposites? As for the the personality profiling, I have tried that in the past. I've tried taking the 16 Personalities test in the perspective of a few of my characters. However, the problem was that I could never fully become invested into their personality and I didn't know what to take from the results. Yet, I haven't yet tried the D&D alignment, so I could also attempt that. Do you have any suggestions along those lines?
The personality profiles are a great, tried and true method for in-depth characters, but I tend to use some shortcuts. Especially since writing several profiles can be daunting. Usually, I start with a snapshot. My character is a blacksmith. I use that for a few points. He's hardened, gruff, independent. He likes to make his own tools, and he doesn't like other people to tell him what to do. But I don't want him to be a cliche, so I throw in a few traits that might make him different. He loves to bake. He frequently cooks for his friends. He loves classic sci-fi movies. But he also has a dark past. He was once a criminal before he turned his life around. Really, in my opinion, a character's personality is not so much an analysis of how they should act, but rather a collection of details and experiences that inform their actions. Sometimes, they surprise you and do something you didn't think they would. And other times they disappoint you and make you shake your head. I hope this helped. Good luck!
Actually, this was very helpful. I'm gonna try this method out and come back with the results later. Thank you!
The key to observation – or, so I'm told at least – is to look at what it is about the people you're observing that draws your attention: the way they talk, the way they dress, the way they express themselves emotionally... The key to the individual psychological perspective, as opposed to the circumstantial sociological, is to focus on the fact that people from the same backgrounds turn out differently. Whenever you find yourself thinking "this person [either your character, someone else's character, or a real person] is like this because of how they were raised," think about how somebody else raised in a similar way might have responded differently. The inside-out approach is the one that's recommended the most strongly on writing sites, with lines like "once you figure out your characters, your plot will come naturally because you'll know what your characters want, what conflicts would hit them the hardest, and how they'll react to the conflict." Trying the outside-in approach will mean having to set this very, very common paradigm aside and instead to think first about "what would be a cool thing to have happen," and then ask yourself after the fact "what kind of person would want to do this?" This is why I always go to the types directly instead of taking a test to see which type my character "should" be. Initially, I thought that it would be interesting if the leader of my villain protagonists was INTP like me: she would generally keep to herself, she would enjoy the narrative of "being able to get away with committing The Perfect Crime," she would be very impersonal, and she would enjoy making plans that were loose enough to allow a lot of improvisation. As I delved into the group's backstory, I got the idea that she was more interesting as an ISTJ pragmatist who just wanted to make a living and who's decided that crime pays. She's still not a people person, but I've found that it's more interesting if she likes practical concerns rather than abstract, and I've found that she's more interesting if she prefers the planning stage over the improvisation stage and if she wished that every plan she came up with could go smoothly. The first rule of Alignment is you don't talk about Alignment ... Seriously, Alignment as originally developed by the designers of D&D was a contradictory mess of bits and pieces taken from wildly differing philosophical worldviews about what Is and about what Isn't, and the fastest way to start an argument on RPG sites is to try arguing about whose version of the Alignment system is "better" than anybody else's: Lawful means that you're intelligent enough to come up with a plan, Chaotic means that you're not intelligent enough to do better than acting randomly Lawful means that you're capable of working with other people, Chaotic means that you have to be alone every second because you don't get along with anybody Lawful means that you always follow the letter of the laws of whatever jurisdiction you happen to be under at any given moment, Chaotic means that you always break the laws of whatever jurisdiction you happen to be under at any given moment Lawful means that you have a personal code of honor that you follow, Chaotic means that you have a personal code of honor that you follow (again, this system was not designed by experts in moral philosophy) ... Any combination of any/all of the above What works best for me is to boil it down to a simple "Do you like the concept of Authority, or do you hate the concept?" This also lends itself better to more combinations with MyersBriggs: one of the common stereotypes among people who look at both is "Lawful = Order = Judger, Chaotic = Disorder = Perciever," but I can easily picture people who are authoritarian about what to do, yet loose and flexible about how to do it, and I can easily picture people who are antiauthoritarian about what to do, yet methodical and step-by-step about how to do it, and I like it when the labels are able to reflect this (such as my secondary protagonist being a Lawful Evil ESFP, or my tertiary protagonist being a Chaotic Evil ESFJ, or my lead antagonist being a Chaotic Evil INTJ). That's why I love the quick-and-dirty labels for getting started Just putting down My lead protagonists are Neutral Evil ISTJ, Lawful Evil ESFP, Chaotic Evil ESFJ, and True Neutral INFJ My lead antagonist is Chaotic Evil INTJ Doesn't take a lot of space to write down, and the amount of information packed into each label is enough to remind me of everything else about my characters that doesn't go into The Official Character Sheet™.
Very cool. I like your shortcut for this approach. I've also used character sketches in the past (just a form you fill, no actual sketching) and had great results. Simply answering detailed questions about your character (what they drive, where they work, health problems, tattoos) can give you a remarkably detailed personality. Wouldn't be much of a stretch to merge that with a psychological profile. The other great thing about a sketch is that when you start writing, many of the blanks are already filled in. I recently used a character planner app and just answered all the questions. Then I couldn't wait to sit down and start writing. Worth a try.
Alright, so thanks to both of your ideas, I have thought of a list of information about my character. For example, by using my character’s occupation as a servant, I can assume that he is uneducated, stingy with money, and envious of the rich. However, he also tries to make the best of a situation instead of dwelling on how much things suck. Additionally, he does find himself wanting more out of life, but he doubts that his circumstances will ever change and tries to focus on the present instead of the future. Outside of his job, he finds it difficult to be social because he has difficulty trusting people aside from his mother. A hobby of his is singing even if he’s not the best at it. He also hangs out with the crows in the village when he has time. In return for his food, the crows give him little trinkets they find and he stores in a secret box behind his bed. Additionally, by using the 16 Personalities, I thought it would be interesting for my character’s personality to be either an ISFJ because he does share a few strengths and weaknesses of that personality-type such as gentleness and shyness. However, does this mean that I have to have him embody every single trait of an ISFJ personality? I imagine him to use a tough, cold front to keep people he doesn’t trust away. Would this make sense? As for alignment, I can see him as Neutral Good ISFJ: doesn’t necessarily want no authority, tries to be a good person, socially awkward, sensitive, and disorganized. I’m definitely not finished yet, but this is what I have so far. Thanks for your help!
1) Nobody’s 100% of everything I’m basically INTP, but I’m also closer to INFP than I am to ENTP, ISTP, or INTJ. 2) Everybody has to do things that don’t come naturally to them (like me talking to other people). I would say that Darth Vader is a Lawful Evil ESFP who only looks like a Lawful Evil ESTJ because he has to spend all of his time suppressing his natural sensitive and spontaneous side. By all means, write a natural ISF- who struggles with having to act IST- all day. P is disorganized, J is organized ISFP? Best of luck!
So, I looked back at the 16 Personalities website and found out what exactly those letters mean. I added T for his personality, although I'm not sure if that exactly fits. Like, I'm not sure if my character would be easily stressed out if what happened in my story didn't happen. However, thanks to the accidental death of his mother and the fate of the world resting on his shoulders, he is prone to mental breakdowns. Therefore, I changed it to A as it would describe how he would react naturally to stress. Does this make any sense?
Makes sense. The Turbulent/Assertive axis was not originally part of Myers-Briggs, but another profile Big 5 (also known by the acronyms CANOE and OCEAN) was developed later with the axes of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Low Conscientiousness on the Big 5 is the same as "Perceiver" while High Conscientiousness is the same as "Judger" Low Extraversion on Big 5 is the same as "Introvert" while High Extroversion is the same as "Extravert" Low Agreeableness is the same as "Thinker" while High Agreeableness is the same as "Feeler" and a lot of people associate Low Openness with "Sensor" and High Openness with "iNtuitor" so some Myers Briggs tests add a 5th axis based on Big 5's Neuroticism Personally, I don't bother with that addition in my own character labels, but it sounds like you've got it pretty well: your character is a naturally Assertive person who looks Turbulent because of the mental issues he's developed from the life he's been subjected to.
It can affect it anyway you want it . Writers invent things and then try to convince other people that it happened. People don't grow up the same. Are all New Yorkers quarrelsome? Or are they all helpful and king? Surely not. "Slumdog Millionaire" was a movie about a guy from the slums who was really nice. In the same movie there are other guys from the slums who are really not nice at all. They grew up in the same environment, but grew up to be different. Mostly, because that suited the plot of the movie The plot of the main character showed how he grew up nice despite that environment, because he was strong, wise etc, etc whatever qualities the screenwriters decided to give him in order to prove their point (that one can grow up nice in such a place). There are other works in fiction where the main character never becomes a nice person, because that suits the plot there. Both are believable plots because life has all that variety and whatever traits you pick for your character will have some sort of real-life alternative, a person who actually lived through that. So, choose what sort of statement you want to make with your story and build the character around it. "Man grows up in bad place, becomes nice person" or, "Man grows up in bad place, becomes bad person", or something else entirely. It's your world, you invent things and that's that
Sorry I haven't replied sooner, life's been busy. However, I just wanted to thank you all for your advice. I'll be sure to try out your suggestions
Seems as though his mother is number one! What is his mother like? What atribute does he mimick and what attribute does he not! What other influences does he have and how do they act? This will also help fill in the blanks. What experiences does he have and how did that shape him? Is he a survivor or a victom this is how you tell how reacts to the influences around him.
Yes, his mother is very much number one for him. So, ever since posting this thread, I've actually changed up my main protagonist's backstory quite a bit. In this backstory, he instead lives with his mother, father, and sister in a town located in a valley right by the sea. That isn't to say his mother's not number one still, but the circumstances he was raised under have changed significantly. Rather than living in the slums, he's actually of the middle-class and is expected to inherient the family business (either working as a merchant or running a winery, I'm stil deciding). As for how his societal position affects him, I would say that he doesn't necessarily hate his position in his life, but he doesn't love it either. He moreso see's it as something he is obligated to have and doesn't want to appear ungrateful as he does admittedly live a comfortably lifestyle. This is because he wasn't really allowed to know more about the world outside of the valley and wants to explore it in order to find somewhere he wants to be in life. On the other hand, I haven't had much motivation to work on this story lately, so I've been taking a break from it. Therefore, I have yet to fully flesh-out the protag.'s relationship with his family aside from this: having his little sister following him around from a young age has taught him to be more patient and calm with others, especially children throwing tantrums.
Your charector just became me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Do not write this guy unless you want to make the world cry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It can only end badly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You just started writing "Old Yeller", "Brians Song", or "Love Story".
Trust me, I do want the world to cry. However, there will be no dogs involved or someone dying of illness.
This guys empathy,guilt,and sense of responsibility is going to make him a push over attracting just about any body looking for a daddy.
Oh no, nothing like that happens in the story. Instead. . . *SPOILERS AHEAD* He burns his mother to death in a horrible accident and is rescued from being executed by a crow. And after a long journey to the biggest mountain the world, he then has to sacrifice his life to save the world from an eternal winter.
I don't know if it helps, but I'd go and read memoirs written by people who grow up in the slums. Recently I read https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nemesis-One-Man-Battle-Rio/dp/184792266X 'Nemesis: One man and the Battle for Rio' by Misha Glenn. It shows how life was through some years in Rocinha, one favela of Rio de Janeiro, and it's about a man who eventually became the de-facto ruler of Rocinha (until he went to prison, but that's another story). Maybe you can find inspiration from it.
Thank you, but I've decided that my protagonist will not live in any city slums. However, I can definitely use this for a different character. Once again, thank you
The guy is going to have a dog if his specialty is children throwing tantrams he will not be able to turn down strays in adult life. There is always a stray dog around. He is likely to get consumed by just a few peoples problems and those people will be child like damanding a great deal of attention because they know they can get it. These people will flock to him. Ya you could likely sucker this guy into it especialy if you put his sister on that mountain too. He would need a side kick to keep him from trying to rescue every thing he could along the way. Some one to keep him focused on the task at hand.
After thinking this over, I can see that happening. However, his sister won't be going with him, but he will have his talking crow companion to guide him. In fact, he won't be seeing his family ever again when he escapes. Furthermore, I can see that he will try to save who he can. So, I want to ask you, how can he get to a point where he begrudgingly accepts that he can't save everyone?
Good question? I think he would have to run into a situation where he could not even save him self. Even if his complete and total attention was on the task at hand. He always beleives he can find a way. That belief would have to be destroyed. It would take more than once or he would believe it was a fluke. Not being able to help him self might bring him to the belief he can not help others.
And, the death of his mother either makes him more determined to prove this to himself, or it makes him second-guess himself as in he worries that he might accidentally hurt the person he's trying to save.
