#it does not matter is the adventure is virtuous or meaningless. was it above all fun?

[zeravmeta]

people think that gudas ability to befriend servants is some kind of special trait tied to high master compatibility, but that simply isnt true. all of chaldea is willing to live and die by gudas choices because one week they'll call up the single most powerful collection of historical magical warriors on the face of the planet and go "listen guys i need all of you to help me with a misinformation campaign for the coolest heist ever" and then the next week go "alright guys i now need all of you to come with me to the largest hobby shopping center of the world"

[home-halone]

Hey do u mind uh sharing that philosophy class revelation bc my rp characters are real flat

Oh no, if you feel you can improve on a character, then it’s great you’re looking for help on that!

but oh boy, I probably don’t have my notes on it anymore as this was nearly 5 years ago [sweaty spaghetti] and most of the readings on it can come across super boring but a lot of it involves the Philosophy of self for starters, and some ideas derived from that. 

I’m not going to delve in which-philosopher-said-what and the exact terminologies because it’s been so long and I’m not an authority on it but I’m going to try to put it in really dumb simple terms because my professor was an absolute genius in contextualizing all the ideas for the contemporary student. GET READY FOR THE ASSPULL OF THE CENTURY.

[Super long pretentious rambling and answers under the cut]

As in general writing advice, what I know in philosophy is, you need to have a strong sense/idea of character (or Self) in order to define someone’s identity. By that I mean, you really need like a high level of awareness in terms of motivations, morals, values etc. for your character’s identity. It’s best to start with the core character themselves, then move on to their relationship with the world outside and around them.

David Hume’s theory on defining one’s identity rests less on the individual self and more in relation to experiences with other people/things etc outside the self. Just think of the nurture part of the nature vs nurture thing. This thought could be really useful in shaping a character though their experiences and they could come out as a different person after the calamity and you could follow that idea in your writing.

Other philosophers have other ideas in what grounds the self and it sounds super boring and confusing but if you’re able to get through it and apply it somehow to your characters it can be pretty rewarding.

I like to think there’s some truth and sense in all theories and that’s why they do hold up, even when they’re contradicted. Not a lot of them have a “final” answer of being true/false. Most of the criticisms I hear about philosophy is that it’s all stupid and circular because you get no real answer, but it’s sort of like reading The Alchemist, where, yeah it’s absolutely circular but if you don’t find meaning in it then it will be senseless. Sometimes it gets all cherry-picking-what-you-want but imo there’s nothing wrong with that if you’re happy with defining your existence a certain way. ANYWAY.

Seriously philosophers have a lot of conflicting opinions in defining something because oh boy. In terms of morality, Immanuel Kant, for example, put a lot of emphasis in defining doing “good” as something that can only be done when consciously done for goodness’ sake in itself like. It doesn’t matter if you’re trying to be nice to someone, or it’s in your nature, or you’re doing good things because “you’d do the same thing”. These are all actions motivated by a will that isn’t purely for the sake of doing the right thing. His idea is, you have to be selflessly doing the right thing BECAUSE it’s the right thing.

See, uhh I ended up rambling lmao because I don’t follow each idea exactly, and other philosophers have other definitions of good and some of them might focus on actualization (doing a good deed) vs intent (motivation), but when I see how nuanced the ideas in philosophy are I start incorporating that in characters and ‘break’ the rules in a sense. 

I have a good two-shoes character (Saraswati) who is outwardly virtuous, softspoken, a model student and the general idea of good but she is the exact type of person that would not qualify for the Kantian definition of good. Her motivation for doing the right thing and following rules is because she’d always done so for her entire life and because it was expected of her. She had no reason to stray from that until she was removed from her safe space and thrust into what basically was a lawless place. Underneath all the good deeds and “niceness” was a lot of selfishness and she had the “if I do this for x, they would do it for me too” type of mentality. Sara wasn’t manipulative per se, but she wasn’t above hoping to instill a sense of indebtedness in people through her kindness (without cashing in on it through demands, she sort of hopes they just realize and recognize her actions, so in polite society she knows her way around). She may be viewed as ‘good’ ICly but anyone reading her thoughts might have a tougher time responding. Through her ignorance, she’s innocent but she’s definitely on the darker, muddled side of goodness, despite qualifying as lawful good.

I have another character (Laidy) who did everything from change her name and leave home, to swear off magic completely to cut ties with her affluent family. She had a solid identity as a prodigy in magic but was completely unhappy with fulfilling her role as heir to a very ancient knowledge. Her family was absolutely cold to her but doted on her brother. A lot of her frustration was the lack of affection, denial of expression and envy of her brother's freedom. Despite this, she was kind to him, recognizing a reflection of herself in him and she grew increasingly rebellious etc until she left.

At some point later in life Laidy became a performer and innkeeper who joined a band of adventurers and became their beloved mother figure. There she found all the love and support she craved, and acted as she pleased. There are two identities here, and only one of them defines her. Even if her past does play a part, her values say that it was a different time in her life that has nothing to do with her present, and accompanying this is the various changes she'd adopted to mold herself.

A particular dilemma she once faced was a life-or-death situation involving her sort-of-adopted kids, that required magic to revive someone on the brink of death. Even in this situation she would not revert to her old self (despite being more than powerful enough to make a difference) to save someone she now considered beloved. It was a real struggle (luckily someone else was also secretly a mage IC) but a closely-guarded principle she adheres to, to assert her sense of self as an individual and not merely a "foolish" extension of her former "respectable" life.

So, those are examples of how I might incorporate what I learned in a character. I take an archetype and try to dissect it and find something to explore. Try to figure out what DEFINES an archetype of a character and ask questions. What exactly makes a “mad scientist” mad? What about someone overly religious? What aspect of that do you want to delve into?  It’s less the actual philosophical ideas since I can’t remember all the stuff I’ve read tbh LOL, and more like applying the type of thinking I’ve learned after all those hecking classes lol.

It extends to their relationships with other people and even defining what love/affection/hatred is to them. Don’t stop thinking at “X loves Y”, like, actually define the act of loving. In romantic love, do they view themselves as being one with someone else (like in the poetic Christian way people describe at weddings)? What does that mean for your character? Do they overstep a sense of self and “mine-ness” and cross over into the experience of another and act on their behalf for their own sake? Are they aware of it? Is it ‘good’ in their values? Is love some sort of mutual journey of self-improvement or knowledge? Is love living separately as two whole selves and not about demanding, but giving?

Even ideals like freedom can be analyzed like, what does that actually mean for a character who was formerly held captive (maybe an Ala Mhigan)? Is it ‘freedom’ in a sense where they do as they please without consequence? Is it the type of freedom you get when you have culpability/accountability/responsibility for something, as this means you’re recognized as an individual with their own actions and motivations. Is freedom being able to choose anything and everything? Is it possible to recognize the assertion of one’s freedom in a more finite situation??

Characters that progress in change don’t always progress neatly. Sometimes they stumble, sometimes they make a complete u-turn. Sometimes it’s going from one bad mentality to another (lovestruck overconfident Ducimel becoming an indulgent but uncertain person).

IDK IF I’M GETTING MY POINT ACROSS because philosophy is a huge mess and jumping into it can be confusing and meaningless without experiencing what is being described (Descartes’ I think therefore I am’ sounds super weird and funky and very ‘people die if they are killed’ without knowing) but also because I myself am a mess

anyway tl;dr I don’t remember the EXACT revelation but this the mindset I have when I’m deciding on a aspects of my character. I take a “truth” or “fact” and question its definition to the core and try to deconstruct/reconstruct it because people have different values and perceptions and try to play with the derived idea and see how that fits with the original archetype and how it plays against it.

 I’m sorry if it wasn’t super helpful fdsjsflk