What do you like/dislike in a protagonist?

[sageoftruth]

As for protagonists I like...

Generally, I like protagonists who can do things I cannot do.

However, my absolute favorites are the extremely quick-witted ones. The heroes who always know what to say in any situation. The ones who can often out-wit their foes and think several steps ahead of everyone else. I loved Zhuge Liang from Red Cliff, who was practically clairvoyant in his trickery, and had some charm to go with it.

Likewise, I enjoyed Tyrion Lannister, who often managed to have the last word in any one-on-one argument, and could influence people with his choice of words, despite his physical appearance.

I definitely have an affinity for the suave and composed heroes over the awkward or impetuous ones. I remember playing Danganropa and actually liking stuck-up rich guy, Byakuya for being one of the few who remained calm and composed while nearly everyone else was losing their mind.

 

[Ryallen]

Like: moral ambiguity, knowledgeability and the capacity for ruthlessness. There's a satisfaction to having a protagonist who's willing to do the right thing (well, not always), but who's also grizzled and tough enough to know when to take the silk gloves off. When that ruthlessness becomes gratuitous, however, we're dealing with a villain protagonist. Kratos is a good example.

Examples include Frank Underwood from house of Cards, Guts from Berserk (well, up to around volume 17), Tyrion Lannister from ASOIAF, Walter White from Breaking Bad, Billy Butcher from The Boys (a curious case of the protagonist and actual main character being two separate characters), Caiman from Dorohedoro, Joel from The Last of Us, and Rust Cohle from True Detective. Hell, even Nausica? (the manga version), a literal savior figure and one of the most goody two-shoes protagonists ever, has guts and resolve, and isn't above using violence and standing her ground when necessary.

Dislike: naivete and lack of balls. I've found these qualities most prevalent in several manga I've tried to read and stopped. For example, the protagonist of The Breaker was an especially unbearable case of this.

In short, I don't like chronically "good guy" wimps as protagonists. Villains and villainy are much more interesting anyway. That's why I play Chaos Space Marines. Characters skirting the edges of morality are infinitely more satisfying than ones totally on one side or the other.

I've always been a fan of the ruthless protagonist, which is why I, ironically enough, was a fan of Ben 10 Ultimate Alien's arc when Kevin goes evil again. Gwen, Kevin's girlfriend, tried to get Ben to find another way to save Kevin without killing him, but Ben, despite his previous propensity for mercy and friendliness, had seen Kevin at his worst and was prepared to kill him without a moment's hesitation if Kevin became too dangerous. The final fight between the two of them was a fight to the death, and it showed immensely. I know that there are a lot of examples of heroes willing to kill for the greater good, but that was one that sticks out to me if only because of Ben's previous experience with Kevin and his unwillingness to let it happen again.

OP: I've always wondered at what point one draws the line on what exactly a protagonist should be capable of and what they actually are. Like, if a character has backgrounds in five different schools of training, all of which come up and allow them to do a bunch of shit all at once, is that bullshit, even if it was already there? I'd argue no. If it was a video game character, I'd say that if the character is meant to be a pre-established badass, then it makes sense for the player to be able to do a bunch of stuff. But in non-interactive fiction like books, TV shows, and movies? I'd say that there has to be a limit. A protagonist shouldn't be capable in far more situations than their occupation allows. It's perfectly fine if a protagonist is good at their job. But they should never be the best right off the bat, or with little effort, and they should never be good at too many things at once. If a character is a star pilot, he should be a good star pilot, maybe even great. But not perfect, not the best, and he shouldn't also be an ace mechanic unless he's never been able to afford a mechanic, and he shouldn't be a perfect shot. Remember that limitations are far more interesting than advantages.

 

[maninahat]

I dislike a protagonist when what the narrator's description of that character is accidentally at odds with how the character actually behaves.

The best example I can give is Genevieve Cogman's Invisible Library, in which the narrator informs you at various times that the protagonist is a sexually adventurous, kung-fu fighting bibliophile, and yet throughout the book she actually acts like a prudish weakling who never manages to read a single book. In one scene the protagonist meets her sidekick, an ungodly sexy guy who she says is way out of her league and would never ask her out in a million years. Two chapters later, he offers her unconditional sex out of the fucking blue, and she turns him down for reasons. You might think the narrator is at fault here, but if the narrator is clearly meant to be reliable, than the mistake is in how the writer has characterised their protagonist. In this case, they wanted to make their character a super awesome lead, but also down to earth and relatable, and in the end they created a massive cognitive dissonance between the two. The opposite example is protagonist and narrator Kvothe from the Kingkiller Chronicles, self described as terrible with women, despite also describing himself as the greatest sexual partner and the land and adored by practically every female character he encounters.

I want to make it clear, I don't mind stories with unreliable narrators who misrepresent things - that's an interesting thing to do with your story - what I don't like is when a narrator who is clearly supposed to be reliable, but the writer doesn't approach their writing very carefully, giving us descriptions that give the audience a very different mental image of the situation that is at odds with how the narrator views it. It is possible to write relatable but super bad ass characters. It is possible to have dishonest or crappy narrators, but doing either requires a lot of care.

 

[the December King]

The opposite example is protagonist and narrator Qvothe from the Kingkiller Chronicles, self described as terrible with women, despite also describing himself as the greatest sexual partner and the land and adored by practically every female character he encounters.

Man, I really liked the writing in The KingKiller Chronicle, but Kvothe is just too amazing at... EVERYTHING, and it got tired fast.

... Still might pick up Doors Of Stone. Love the language and descriptions...just don't like the characters much.

 

[Sonmi]

I personally like a (partly) misplaced sense of self-righteousness.

From ASoIaF, think Theon in ACoK, Dany in general, or Jaime.

I dislike overly competent protagonists, and I particularly am annoyed whenever protags are especially quippy and it doesn't fit the genre.

 

[Breakdown]

Characters from harsh, impoverished backgrounds who mysteriously seem to have really posh accents, like Rey from the Force Awakens.

 

[Story]

I dislike protagonists that are jerks. To be more specific I hate it when the protagonist is a self serving jerk and the narration or the mood of the piece of work they are in doesn't acknowledge how awful they are or, worse even praises their behavior or world view.

See; Main characters from No Game, No Life, Konosuba, the film Into the Wild, and the game Watch Dogs.
Now to be clear Im fine with unlike able protagonists as long as their flaws are treated with disgust or seen as tragic in a piece of work or if they try to raise above their flaws.

I love protagonists that are generally idealistic if not naive (like myself to be honest) or anyone who recognizes their faults but want to overcome them.
See; Most coming of age stories ever.

 

[COMaestro]

One of my favorite protagonists is Harry Dresden from the Dresden Files book series. He's fallible, has flaws, is powerful yet gets knocked around a lot, very witty and quippy, always tries to do the right thing though occasionally does some dark stuff if it's necessary. I especially like how he has developed more and more as a character throughout the series, going from flying by the seat of his pants to plotting things out ahead of time to give him a necessary advantage at a key time. He feels human, and you can't ask for much more than that in a (human) protagonist.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Villains and villainy are much more interesting anyway. That's why I play Chaos Space Marines. Characters skirting the edges of morality are infinitely more satisfying than ones totally on one side or the other.

Pardon me, I'm legitimately confused. What is "skirting the edges of morality" about literally signing your soul to the manifestations of wrath, betrayal, decay, and avarice whose sole desire in reality is to devour all of existence?

And how is that not a definite side?

 

[MrBoBo]

I like the guy in District 9, at the start he doesn't seem to have any redeeming qualities, he's a a coward, follower and xenophobe.

As the movie goes on and he experiences what the prawns have experienced he starts to change, and you get that wonderful, wonderful scene of him slowing down and stopping in the Mech as the mercenary mocks him running away.

Counter to that, I really really hate Superman in Man In Steel. He's basically told he's Jesus over and over and has almost no characters beyond looking moody. When the aliens come, it's become of him lol

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Villains and villainy are much more interesting anyway. That's why I play Chaos Space Marines. Characters skirting the edges of morality are infinitely more satisfying than ones totally on one side or the other.

Pardon me, I'm legitimately confused. What is "skirting the edges of morality" about literally signing your soul to the manifestations of wrath, betrayal, decay, and avarice whose sole desire in reality is to devour all of existence?

And how is that not a definite side?

Oh, the "skirting edges of morality" thing wasn't meant to be about Chaos Space Marines. It was about the kind of protagonists I like. By it I mean I like protagonists that could just as easily be villains in another story.

Spoiler: This image exemplifies it best

[Higher resolution]

When presented out of context, one could easily get the impression that Guts is the villain in this situation (well, he kind of is). Rosine (the butterfly girl if you haven't read Berserk) is colored in mostly white, levitating gracefully, locked in a non-hostile embrace with a child, while Guts is colored in black, posed in a dominant position in the frame, clearly attacking, and his face is blurred so far as to be indistinguishable. His appearance is jagged and angular with weapons clearly in sight, whereas Rosine's is flowing, soft and without any outward signs of hostility or even capacity to harm others. This single frame embodies so much of the core elements of Berserk I wish I could have a poster of it on my wall.

And to get into semantics a bit, the edges of morality are a very pronounced theme in the Chaos Space Marines lore. Ahriman sought to save his brothers in arms. Typhus wished for the agony of his legion to end. Lucius was a noble and skilled combatant who got a bit too much into it. Same with Obliterators and Mutilators: they were the best at their jobs, and in a universe where there is only war, who doesn't get a bit obsessed with it when that's the only thing they exist for?

 

[maninahat]

Oh, I just remembered another protagonist I don't like: A loutish, street smart hero, when combined with a book smart, priggish sidekick. Someone already mentioned Jurassic World, but its the basis for a million and one buddy cop styled shows, all of which seem to suggest that a protagonist's pig ignorance automatically comes hand-in-hand with style and wit, whilst being knowledgeable and accomplished makes you an uncool, stick-in-the-mud and naive to the real world.

Fine, I get that you want a relatable protagonist with flaws, but the presumption then is that the audience can only ever relate to a protagonist who doesn't know very much, won't dress well, and sticks exclusively to blue collar pass times.

 

[jademunky]

When an author uses their protagonist as a mouthpiece for their own views. This usually overlaps with Sueism as well. Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton were two of the worst offenders for having the story stop dead in it's tracks so that the character can pontificate on whatever political bugbear the creator is wrestling with, often with only a tenuous connection to the actual events going on in the book.

 

[Lisker84]

I think an important thing is if the character's an antihero, don't go full dick. I think Kratos was probably the worst offender I've ever seen in a game or elsewhere, where he just showed himself to be an unrepentant douchebag to everybody, and without any shred of charisma or charm that can save someone with that attitude, like some villains who can get away with it due to the use of dark humor.

When an author uses their protagonist as a mouthpiece for their own views. This usually overlaps with Sueism as well. Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton were two of the worst offenders for having the story stop dead in it's tracks so that the character can pontificate on whatever political bugbear the creator is wrestling with, often with only a tenuous connection to the actual events going on in the book.

This is what made me stop watching South Park.

 

[jademunky]

I think an important thing is if the character's an antihero, don't go full dick. I think Kratos was probably the worst offender I've ever seen in a game or elsewhere, where he just showed himself to be an unrepentant douchebag to everybody, and without any shred of charisma or charm that can save someone with that attitude, like some villains who can get away with it due to the use of dark humor.

When an author uses their protagonist as a mouthpiece for their own views. This usually overlaps with Sueism as well. Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton were two of the worst offenders for having the story stop dead in it's tracks so that the character can pontificate on whatever political bugbear the creator is wrestling with, often with only a tenuous connection to the actual events going on in the book.

This is what made me stop watching South Park.

For me, it was the I-Pad episode.

Anyway, I still maintain that Kratos could've been (and still could be) redeemed as a fictional character if the game's writers were allowed to follow his tragic character arc to it's logical conclusion. The problem is not that they let him go full dick, the problem is that they did it while insisting that he was something else: "No, he is the light and hope for humanity! Zeus has been corrupted!" If the game just let Kratos be the villain he clearly was. This also opens the door to sequel-heaven as it set's up a character arc for a new guy to demand vengeance and prepare to take Kratos down.

 

[Lisker84]

Yeah, it probably could've worked if they made him a straight up villain, instead of trying to set him up as a good guy. there are lots of lovable villains who are way worse people, but his personality is just a turnoff as hero or antihero. I also didn't like how the character felt like a case of overcompensation on the developers' part, where an hour or so into the first game he's sleeping with multiple women and the narrator is talking about how many people he's banged. It's like I expected to hear about how big his dick was any moment.

 

[BrawlMan]

I think an important thing is if the character's an antihero, don't go full dick. I think Kratos was probably the worst offender I've ever seen in a game or elsewhere, where he just showed himself to be an unrepentant douchebag to everybody, and without any shred of charisma or charm that can save someone with that attitude, like some villains who can get away with it due to the use of dark humor.

When an author uses their protagonist as a mouthpiece for their own views. This usually overlaps with Sueism as well. Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton were two of the worst offenders for having the story stop dead in it's tracks so that the character can pontificate on whatever political bugbear the creator is wrestling with, often with only a tenuous connection to the actual events going on in the book.

This is what made me stop watching South Park.

Same effect, but that's what made me stop watching Family Guy around Season 7. The other reason is the cast became so unlikable, especially Peter, that I rather they just DIIIIIEEEEEE, than see them exist for another nanosecond. Seth and his writers are such assholes that can't take much criticism it's ridiculous. You are right about South Park, but I am still watch them, because they know how to do humor better than Family Guy. It' funny, even though Matt and Trey don't like being compared to FG, their early seasons (1-4) had a lot of random humor for the sake of it, but just not on the level Seth's show. This season of SP has been lacking and building too much on continuity. I can attest to that.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

If you are familiar with the series Bones, then that's everything I hate in a protagonist.

let me guess, the overly smart but socially awkward lead who is uber good at her job but is comedic at points because of lack of understanding of social situations?

Sounds like really bad writing of autistic characters

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

let me guess, the overly smart but socially awkward lead who is uber good at her job but is comedic at points because of lack of understanding of social situations?

Sounds like really bad writing of autistic characters

More because all the characters on that show are ultra perfect Mary-Sues.