[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Not that Reika's 'vulnerability' here is well-received by many people, but about vulnerability it's not merely adding that to characters, but also how that it seems that there's a view where characters are only okay to display a breakdown, vulnerability, etc. if they have "proven" themselves to be a bonafide badass (by being unstoppable fighter with terrible personality depicted as tough) of which it'd be praised as humanizing them instead, while otherwise characters who aren't deemed as 'badass' enough showing that are derided as being crybabies, wimps, etc. Actually for the ones I mentioned in those posts, those character types are often given occassional vulnerable moments.

Um, but that make sense. If a character can be both strong and weak, both rude and soft, this is versatility. If he/she always shows only one trait or several similar ones - this is a flat character. That is, morally good characters are not necessarily good written characters. I myself like to evaluate riders, including from a civil point of view, but this is far from the only point of view. Not to mention the fact that the feelings "like / dislike" are often not explained logically in principle, because they are born in the heart, not the brain.