Why do people think characters need character development to be good?

[FrostyFireMage]

Just because a character isn't a super nuanced and dynamic character doesn't mean they're badly written

[Etrurian emperor]

To some extend I agree. A character doesn't exactly need development but its always nice to have, especially if they have real flaws they can grow out of. 

[Kahvi]

I personally feel like if you're telling a story and your main character's don't change at all during it, there's no point in writing the story in the first place. It's okay for some character's to be static but if it's all of them or it's the main character, the story probably won't be very good. In general, the more important the character is, more unrelatable they become if they don't have that character development. But of course, the fact that a character has development doesn't necessarily mean that they are good character.

Often mary sues start out as normal people. When the story progresses, they usually achieve god-like status without any effort. That, in my opinion, is very bad character development. I should probably mention, that bad character development and negative character development aren't aren't synonymous. People often tend to think that character development is always positive but negative character development is sometimes even more interesting (for example, Lyon in Sacred Stones). Sometimes a good person's downfall is relatable.

Of course, what one thinks is a badly written character depends on the person but that usually means that the character is inconsistent or their decisions doesn't make any sense. In my opinion, Micaiah for example isn't a very well written character. She's praised by other's as this amazing leader but she constantly makes decisions that are just stupid. If I remember correctly, Sothe doubts her decisions much too late and therefore she's just left as this mary sue that can do nothing wrong.

Tl;dr There can be good characters with bad character development and that can make the character bad but there can also be bad characters with good development and that can make the character good.

[Azz]

Because if a character doesn't develop, they become boring and can get stale for the person who is reading/watching this character. For example take Rick from The Walking Dead (Not the best example, but it is the only one I can think of right now).

He starts off pretty 'chivalrous' if you know what I mean. Trying to protect his family and the rest of the Atlanta camp in the shit world they are now in and he is like this for the first two seasons. Then in the third season, his wife dies and he becomes severely mentally damaged from it but over time, he accepts that in this world, people are going to die, even his family, no matter what happens and starts to heal and by season 4, he has become a fine leader and has established a community.

Now, if Rick was to stay the same as his season 1 and 2 character for the whole of Walking Dead, a show that will no doubt run for a long time and has the things that happen in it happen around him,the show would get very stale and since he is the titular character, I say many people would drop the show since he would bore people to death. This is why we need character development.

[Augestein]

1 hour ago, FrostyFireMage said:

Just because a character isn't a super nuanced and dynamic character doesn't mean they're badly written

Because people started thinking characters had to be dynamic to be developed. That is not true at all. Character development is learning more about the character and different facets of the character based on motivations, background, and interactions with other characters. When a character has a rounded personality, that's when you can say that they are truly developed. Just because a character is simple doesn't mean that they are poorly developed. It's a huge misnomer that a lot of critics have nowadays. 

Just now, Kahvi said:

I personally feel like if you're telling a story and your main character's don't change at all during it, there's no point in writing the story in the first place. It's okay for some character's to be static but if it's all of them or it's the main character, the story probably won't be very good. In general, the more important the character is, more unrelatable they become if they don't have that character development. But of course, the fact that a character has development doesn't necessarily mean that they are good character.

Often mary sues start out as normal people. When the story progresses, they usually achieve god-like status without any effort. That, in my opinion, is very bad character development. I should probably mention, that bad character development and negative character development aren't aren't synonymous. People often tend to think that character development is always positive but negative character development is sometimes even more interesting (for example, Lyon in Sacred Stones). Sometimes a good person's downfall is relatable.

Of course, what one thinks is a badly written character depends on the person but that usually means that the character is inconsistent or their decisions doesn't make any sense. In my opinion, Micaiah for example isn't a very well written character. She's praised by other's as this amazing leader but she constantly makes decisions that are just stupid. If I remember correctly, Sothe doubts her decisions much too late and therefore she's just left as this mary sue that can do nothing wrong.

Tl;dr There can be good characters with bad character development and that can make the character bad but there can also be bad characters with good development and that can make the character good.

I absolutely disagree with this. A character not changing could be shown as a strength. IE, a person that grows up in a bad area that has questionable morals and they decide they do not wish to follow them and take up arms against them would seem very weak if they started to change from what they initially believed in from the beginning of the plot. There's a difference between having a character having growth and changing. The woman that decides to stay and fight for the entire story isn't necessarily an undeveloped  character because she decides that instead of moving away from the events, she's going to stay and fight throughout the entire story. 

And that doesn't mean much. That's simply a bad character. Let's make up a story, a martial artist injures himself and cannot compete anymore. So he decides to train a young student to do what he failed to do-- win the super martial arts tournament. The main character has a goal, and he's going to work hard to train his apprentice to become a master. The martial artist doesn't ever need to change his goals because he wanted to, but it doesn't mean that we can't develop him. We can learn about why he wants to even have some win the tournament through proxy, we can learn more about his martial arts style, we can learn what his fighting style means to him, we can learn if he's cold to people based on his interactions with his students... The man doesn't need to change to be developed, we just need to know more about who he is, what he does, and why he does it.  Character development is always a positive thing for a character-- it literally means that the character is developed. IE, the audience can understand them more. Why would that not be a good thing? 

Except Micaiah gets flack for this and it doesn't even make sense. Micaiah has several bad things happen to her over the course of the game. To this day, it still baffles me how anyone can say Micaiah is a Mary Sue when she is easily the most flawed lord in the series and the game never fails to demonstrate how flawed she is by showing bad things happening to her. Even more hilarious is that she's in the same game as Mr. Perfect himself, Ike, and people still target Micaiah. 

 

[FrostyFireMage]

15 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Because people started thinking characters had to be dynamic to be developed. That is not true at all. Character development is learning more about the character and different facets of the character based on motivations, background, and interactions with other characters. When a character has a rounded personality, that's when you can say that they are truly developed. Just because a character is simple doesn't mean that they are poorly developed. It's a huge misnomer that a lot of critics have nowadays. 

I absolutely disagree with this. A character not changing could be shown as a strength. IE, a person that grows up in a bad area that has questionable morals and they decide they do not wish to follow them and take up arms against them would seem very weak if they started to change from what they initially believed in from the beginning of the plot. There's a difference between having a character having growth and changing. The woman that decides to stay and fight for the entire story isn't necessarily an undeveloped  character because she decides that instead of moving away from the events, she's going to stay and fight throughout the entire story. 

And that doesn't mean much. That's simply a bad character. Let's make up a story, a martial artist injures himself and cannot compete anymore. So he decides to train a young student to do what he failed to do-- win the super martial arts tournament. The main character has a goal, and he's going to work hard to train his apprentice to become a master. The martial artist doesn't ever need to change his goals because he wanted to, but it doesn't mean that we can't develop him. We can learn about why he wants to even have some win the tournament through proxy, we can learn more about his martial arts style, we can learn what his fighting style means to him, we can learn if he's cold to people based on his interactions with his students... The man doesn't need to change to be developed, we just need to know more about who he is, what he does, and why he does it.  Character development is always a positive thing for a character-- it literally means that the character is developed. IE, the audience can understand them more. Why would that not be a good thing? 

Except Micaiah gets flack for this and it doesn't even make sense. Micaiah has several bad things happen to her over the course of the game. To this day, it still baffles me how anyone can say Micaiah is a Mary Sue when she is easily the most flawed lord in the series and the game never fails to demonstrate how flawed she is by showing bad things happening to her. Even more hilarious is that she's in the same game as Mr. Perfect himself, Ike, and people still target Micaiah. 

 

I agree with this. Shinon is an unapologetic racist who doesn't change much if at all during the game but can still be considered a good character thanks to his interactions with Rolf and other characters which adds layers to his personality and to why he is so unpleasant

[Junkhead]

I wonder that from time to time. Why is it everyone but myself is complaining about these "poorly written" characters? Do they need to be a virtually real human being to get their aproval? But this is probably because I've never picked up a book in my life. 

Oh well.

[Kahvi]

29 minutes ago, Augestein said:

I absolutely disagree with this. A character not changing could be shown as a strength. IE, a person that grows up in a bad area that has questionable morals and they decide they do not wish to follow them and take up arms against them would seem very weak if they started to change from what they initially believed in from the beginning of the plot. There's a difference between having a character having growth and changing. The woman that decides to stay and fight for the entire story isn't necessarily an undeveloped  character because she decides that instead of moving away from the events, she's going to stay and fight throughout the entire story. 

And that doesn't mean much. That's simply a bad character. Let's make up a story, a martial artist injures himself and cannot compete anymore. So he decides to train a young student to do what he failed to do-- win the super martial arts tournament. The main character has a goal, and he's going to work hard to train his apprentice to become a master. The martial artist doesn't ever need to change his goals because he wanted to, but it doesn't mean that we can't develop him. We can learn about why he wants to even have some win the tournament through proxy, we can learn more about his martial arts style, we can learn what his fighting style means to him, we can learn if he's cold to people based on his interactions with his students... The man doesn't need to change to be developed, we just need to know more about who he is, what he does, and why he does it.  Character development is always a positive thing for a character-- it literally means that the character is developed. IE, the audience can understand them more. Why would that not be a good thing?

I probably should've fraced this better. I meant character development as in character having an arc. Of course when creating a character and giving them a backstory etc is also character development but I specifically meant the former. English isn't my native language so I might've expressed this a bit confusingly.

As for negative character development I just meant that a character can for example succumb to despair during the story and therefore become the antagonist of the story. The character can still be good and relatable because their actions are understandable or then they can just become utterly despicable and corrupted (I can't really think many examples but like Light in Death Note). Either way they can still be a well-written character.

32 minutes ago, Augestein said:

Except Micaiah gets flack for this and it doesn't even make sense. Micaiah has several bad things happen to her over the course of the game. To this day, it still baffles me how anyone can say Micaiah is a Mary Sue when she is easily the most flawed lord in the series and the game never fails to demonstrate how flawed she is by showing bad things happening to her. Even more hilarious is that she's in the same game as Mr. Perfect himself, Ike, and people still target Micaiah.

I do admit, I might've used Mary Sue a bit too harshly there. I just don't like her in part 3. I feel like it's partly Ike's fault and she would've been a lot better character if Ike just wouldn't be in the game. Radiant Dawn just has this weird habit of making Ike always be right and that is partly why Micaiah seems to always make the wrong decisions. She isn't really a Mary Sue, she's just a bad person in my opinion and doesn't really get a good character development because of Ike.

But hey, that's just opinion and I think it is okay to have differing opinions.

[TheWill]

In all honesty, I do dislike characters with a single trait, but only in mass. In Awakening, the cast was way too colourful, I feel I should say. I have yet to play Fates, so I can't comment on it. Previous games did have characters who were defined only by a single-traits, notable examples are Ilyana, Heather, Serra and Sain, however these were minorities in the overarching scheme. It wasn't as frustrating having these colourful characters every once in awhile compared to almost every single character recruitable having a silly gimmick to them that defines almost their entire character wholly. In cases like Ilyana, Faye and Sain, I don't get that sense of detraction or annoyance as they're an anomaly and feel like additions rather than the developers trying too hard to make a character have some silly quirk for the sake of having a quirk. 

A large majority of Fire Emblem side characters don't have any character development. Character development or a character being well-written is definitely not a requirement for a popular character. A popular character only needs to be appealing and have exposure. To a majority of people, these two factors are enough to be a 'good character'. Not to make Fire Emblem's cast seem bad, but if great character development is a requirement to make a good character, there really shouldn't be many Fire Emblem characters that can be labelled as good.

[Skynstein]

The protagonists need to have it, the others, not so much.

Development is a fact of life, it's difficult to make good characters without developing them in some way.

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Cerberus87

[Tenzen12]

Protagonist doesn't need it either. In life of every person (fictional ones included) can come time when he/she find themselves. When they figure their priorities and certain worldview. After that you can't expect any major changes.

If character doesn't have it yet, but began form it due various circumstances that's called character development. If character reached that point already it doesn't mean he is worse than one on beginning of that route. Story can as well take it's time show us what kind of person protagonist is and how he/she got there.

Look for example on Balsa from Serei no Moribito, Spike from Cowboy Beepob or Kino from Kino's journey. 

[wheelsonfire]

I think it really depends on the work itself, and on the character. For example, character studies focus on characters, but the characters might not develop. These characters can still be popular because these works add motivations and information on traits these characters already have.

 

Not even a protagonist needs to be developed in order to work well. For example, Yuri Lowell is an example of a protagonist that hardly develops at all, yet still fits for the type of story he's in (Tales of Vesperia). The main reason being that he sticks to his goals and personality when hardly anyone else does. Also, one of the major themes is people changing their perceptions or having ulterior motives, so this makes him stand out when he doesn't do either.