Please don't put Wuk Lamat in the patches

[chizLemons]

But ... you can say that for ANY characters in ANY games in ANY media, no? So unless there is a case where even a god level writer will not be able to make a certain archetype work no matter what, I don't see the point of differentiation.

Where her concept came from? The writing.

Where her personality came from? The writing.

How she was introduced? The writing.

How she was used? The writing.

How did she act? The writing.

And where the writing came from? The Writer.

Yes, that is how it works for every character in every piece of media.
The thing is, multiple writers can write the SAME character. If you read a fanfic about a character you like from an original piece of media, and then you don't like it, do you think it's the fanfic writer's fault, or the original writer's fault? Would you say "wow, that character sucks", or "eh, this person didn't get them"?
When you watch a movie based on a book, and the characters you love from the book are acting differently, would you start thinking the character is the problem, or the movie?

That's how you differentiate character x writing. Of course the result will depend on how good the writing is, but you can do it with the SAME character. That's what that person meant and I was trying to explain it to you: the character isn't the problem.

If Wuk Lamat had the same personality and motivations, but we didn't have to talk to her 140 times and hear 7000 words about peace and happiness, she could've been a good character.
Unfortunately, our first contact with her was based on awful writing, so the immediate reaction is "we hate her, get rid of her".

Oh, another example. Alphinaud. A lot of people couldn't stand him in ARR because he was so arrogant and annoying, but then other writers took the lead, and now they managed to make him grow and change a lot of people's opinions on him. The solution wasn't to just get rid of him, was to write him better.

[Raven2014]

When you watch a movie based on a book, and the characters you love from the book are acting differently, would you start thinking the character is the problem, or the movie?

You're saying something completely different. If a fictional character exists in two different media, they are considered different character who came from one source material.

I would say that iteration of the character suck, because that particular writer sucks. This is not something news, happens all the time with Marvel/DC characters and their gazillion different adaptation from different authors. People say stuffs like Bill Finger's batman is great, or Jeb's Batman is average, most don't look at them as one or the same Batman.

Oh, another example. Alphinaud. A lot of people couldn't stand him in ARR because he was so arrogant and annoying, but then other writers took the lead, and now they managed to make him grow and change a lot of people's opinions on him. The solution wasn't to just get rid of him, was to write him better.

Not a good example I'm afraid. ARR's Alphinaud was arrogant and annoying has nothing to good or bad writing, it was because he's meant to be that way. Even if Ishakawa herself was his writer in ARR, I doubt his overall personality would have changed much. HW's Alphinaud exist because ARR's Alphinaud was set up to fail ... on purpose. He grow in HW because he has room to grow after ARR threw him all the way to the bottom, samething can't say about our current resident orange cat.

Also are you conflating between character's personality and quality of writing here? Not every character are meant to be love, and some will be meant to annoy you. A great character doesn't neccessary have to be a goodie two shoes or a fluffy anime cheese cake. A great character is one that manage to provoke the intended reaction from the players. I'm 99% sure ARR's Alphinaud is meant to appear arrogant and snotty, and he's meant to appear as the perfect cringy and annoying young lord, so the fact he managed to get that exact reaction from the players meant he was a great character.

With Wuk Lamat, on one hand she's also presented in a somewhat similar archetype (good personality, naive, idealistic). But on the other hand unlike Alphinaud who was being setting up fail and annoy you, WL was set up to success and be loved by the players. The fact she provoke the exact opposite reaction meant she's a bad character - not in a moral sense, but in the writing sense.

You both really are arguing the same direction at the end of the day. Put aside the split hairs.

Maybe we are maybe not. But I'm always up to enjoy a well meaning discussion. Feel free not to join if you don't like, but not everyone participate in a debate because they have to be right.

[chizLemons]

Not a good example I'm afraid. ARR's Alphinaud was arrogant and annoying has nothing to good or bad writing, it was because he's meant to be that way. Even if Ishakawa herself was his writer in ARR, I doubt his overall personality would have changed much. HW's Alphinaud exist because ARR's Alphinaud was set up to fail ... on purpose. He grow in HW because he has room to grow after ARR threw him all the way to the bottom, samething can't say about our current resident orange cat.

Never said it was. I think you're misunderstanding and overcomplicating what I'm trying to say. It's more that, a different writer, with better ideas for him and a more well-thought development, was able to make him a more interesting character. I don't think he was meant to be as unlikable as he was during base-ARR, but that's another discussion.
And no, I do not think a character has to be a "goodie two shoes fluffy anime cheese cake" to be likable. Please don't assume things I never said.

My overall argument is just that the character isn't the problem, and getting rid of them won't solve the main issue. If you don't change the writing, even if you get rid of the character, the problem won't be solved. Even in different iterations of the same character, there still must be elements that make us identify them as THEM, thus separating them from the writer. And I honestly think that those traits that make Wuk Lamat identifiable as herself could be well used by a good writer. That's it. That means THE CHARACTER isn't the problem, but how she was written.

You're saying something completely different. If a fictional character exists in two different media, they are considered different character who came from one source material.

I would say that iteration of the character suck, because that particular writer sucks.

See, you just agreed with me. If you just said "the iteration of the character suck", you just separated the character from the writing, like I'm trying to tell you. You identify that character as a separate entity that was treated differently by another writer.
Do you agree that Wuk Lamat could not suck as a character if the writer were competent? It wouldn't be about changing her personality, but making her actions coherent with her motivations, giving her well developed growth and appropriate space in the narrative.

That's how you separate character from writing.
That's what I'm trying to tell you from the beginning.

My point is, getting rid of Wuk Lamat will make us breathe a little from finally being away from her after DT, but if the writers don't change, nothing will be solved long term.

Really I was just answering your "And ... how do you differentiate between the two?" over there.

[Raven2014]

My overall argument is just that the character isn't the problem, and getting rid of them won't solve the main issue.

Depending on the particular issue. In the case of Wuk, it will very likely solve it.

- How can you fix a flat character? Make them less flat.

- How can you fix a shallow character? Give them more depth.

But what is WL's main issue? I think I can speak for quite a few people when I say her main issue is there is too much Wuk Lamat. And how can you fix that issue? To remove, to have less. Because any other attempt to fix will mean you gonna give the players even more Wuk Lamat, which will make the issue even worse. This is not uncommon in TV shows, if a character's is written into a wall and they're perceived as the poison chalice, it's not uncommon for the character to be ease out from future season.

See, you just agreed with me. If you just said "the iteration of the character suck", you just separated the character from the writing, like I'm trying to tell you.

No I didn't, I always tie the character to their writer.

My point is, getting rid of Wuk Lamat will make us breathe a little from finally being away from her after DT, but if the writers don't change, nothing will be solved long term.

Depend on what they do you can be half right.

Let's say a chief mess up, put in too much heat and burnt a corner of the dish. If the (same) chief realize the mistake, they can reduce the heat, and try to save the dish by cutting out the part that was burnt.

Even if you're going to bring in a 5-star iron chief to replace the current one, they still gonna have to cut off that burn section because they won't just be able to magically revert it to normal.

And to me, WL is that burnt portion. Feel free to disagree, but yeah WL is "that bad" to me.

The reason I say you are half right because yes, ideally I think they should swap the writing team on the ground of competency. But even a new team won't be able to save WL, not in the near future. She gonna have to be put on a long cool down period at the very least.

Really I was just answering your "And ... how do you differentiate between the two?" over there.

The problem with your logic is that if you just separated the two, then there will never be such a thing as a bad character, or good character for that matter. Which will render any character discussion essentially moot. In your own example, Alphinaugh went from bad to good because the writers change. If you use that as proof of Alphinaugh has always been a good character ... does that mean he would still be a good character, even if his writer never changed from ARR? Do you see the contradiction here?

If a character can never be bad (or good), what is the point of saying the character isn't bad? That's why I asked in my first post: do you have an example of a universally bad character that even a god tier writer won't be able to make good?

My point is fictional characters don't write themselves, they are not a separated entity from the person writing them. That's why I don't separate them, when I say "this character is bad", it's a synonym to "the writing of this character is bad" and vice versa. I just prefer the former because it's a shorter sentence.

My definition of good and bad character is actually quite simple because it has nothing to do with what they are or how they act: good characters fullfill their intended roles, otherwise they are bad. That's it.

I think she may be about to get Lyse'd

I'm actually hoping she will get Minfiliaed.

Don't think she's deserved a Moenbrydaed, that would be too harsh but Lyse'd felt a bit too linen.