What constitutes a 'good' or a 'bad' character?

[Tempester]

A good deal of the time, if you asked me about how I feel about a character in an anime, I would be able to tell you if I like, dislike, or feel neutral toward said character. But I'm still hard-pressed to understand exactly what qualities in general make good characters.

On one hand, does a character need to be well-developed to be a good character? On the other hand, does development necessarily make a character good?

I'll give two contrasting examples for these questions: Tsunashi Takuto from Star Driver and Ikari Shinji from Evangelion.

Spoiler for mild Star Driver spoilers:

I've heard many complaints about Takuto, that he is a dull protagonist and that his lack of development damages Star Driver to some extent. I must disagree with that; I really like Takuto as a character. He radiates energy in most of the scenes he is in. He is extremely nice and agreeable and he barely complains about things. I can actually understand why so many girls go cuckoo over him.

Also, Takuto doesn't just experience the plot unfolding before him and get forced into the story, but he MAKES the story. The Glittering Crux Brigade would have very few opponents if Takuto didn't choose out of his own will to oppose their actions.

Sure, Takuto's development throughout Star Driver is close to nil, but does that have to disqualify him from being a good character?

Spoiler for mild Neon Genesis Evangelion spoilers:

And then there's Shinji. He's another guy I happen to like and many people happen to dislike, but in a different way entirely. Shinji is hated for being a whiny, awkward indecisive brat who gets even worse in those respects throughout the original Neon Genesis Evangelion TV series. But he is a brat I can identify with. While some of us will probably think "This is AWESOME! Let's kick some angel butt!" when given the task to pilot an Eva unit, not all of us will be in that same boat and some of us will break under the responsibilities like Shinji does.

Shinji undergoes many developments throughout NGE, and is a fully rounded human character I wouldn't hesitate to label a good character.

I also noticed that some people only started to like Shinji in the Rebuild of Evangelion series, due to his apparent level up in extreme determination and 'manliness'. Since we're only halfway through Rebuild, I can't comment on whether Shinji's character has truly been improved upon, but I can't help but wonder if these fans value 'badass' qualities alone above everything else in a character.

Of course, we have to take into consideration that there is a very fine line between a strong and exciting character and an overly perfect character that bores or ticks off the audience. And a lot of development can always rub us the wrong way when it's too ridiculous or forced. And of course there is bound to be a lot of overlap in these contrasting opinions.

So I'd like some help on clarifying this topic. What variables are involved when you determine the quality of a character?

[GreatTeacherKen]

Well, I don't have any set standards or rules for what makes a good/bad character. It largely depends on how the animators use them in their story and how well the seiyuus portray them.

I know this sounds really vague, but this is how I feel as some of the characters I like are really different from each other.


And this topic is pretty subjective so I imagine people will give contradicting opinions on what makes a good/bad character.

[Gamer_2k4]

Do they act realistically? Do they develop realistically? Do they have defined, unique personalities?

If so, than they're good characters. (Note that there's nothing in there about whether or not the character is likable.)

[Taufiq91]

I come from a film school environment. i'm majoring in film and planning to enrol in NYU after college.

When i think of a good character, here's what i think:

-Someone who can deal with even the hardest problem he could find
-Someone who moves on from trouble and learns something valuable from it
-A character who "Shows, not Tells". Someone who can visually describes an exposition without boring the viewer to death
-A person who develops alot. Character Development basically
-Someone who can get into the emotion of the audience and connects to them in a beautiful way.

That is what a good character is.

A bad character is basically the opposite of the points i've made basically.

[Tempester]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Do they act realistically? Do they develop realistically? Do they have defined, unique personalities?

Consistency goes hand in hand with all of these. Vague characters who seem to shift personalities abruptly for the sake of the plot end up more like tools than characters. (Several characters from Infinite Stratos come to mind.)

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

If so, than they're good characters. (Note that there's nothing in there about whether or not the character is likable.)

Thanks for mentioning that. I think I mixed up 'good' characters with 'likable' characters in my first post.

Originally Posted by Taufiq91

I come from a film school environment. i'm majoring in film and planning to enrol in NYU after college.

When i think of a good character, here's what i think:

-Someone who can deal with even the hardest problem he could find
-Someone who moves on from trouble and learns something valuable from it
-A character who "Shows, not Tells". Someone who can visually describes an exposition without boring the viewer to death
-A person who develops alot. Character Development basically
-Someone who can get into the emotion of the audience and connects to them in a beautiful way.

That is what a good character is.

A bad character is basically the opposite of the points i've made basically.

Nice list. Maybe I like Takuto despite his shortcomings in development because for me he fulfills the 1st, 3rd and 5th criteria you listed.

That last criterion works for just about every emotion as long as it doesn't stem from obvious flaws in writing. For example a villain that the audience wants to punch in the face is probably a great villain, one that really absorbs us into wanting the heroes to succeed.

[Ahiru77]

I think their actions decide whether they're good or bad.

Secondly, it depends on the genre of the series.

[Triple_R]

Every character in a story has a specific role to play. Even a nameless character who's there simply to move the plot along has a role to play (i.e. to help move the plot along).

A notably good character is a character that has an important role to play, and he/she/it plays it well.

That's it, really.


Being likable is often an integral part of a role that a character has to play, but not always. Many antagonistic/villainous characters are intended to be ones that the viewers will dislike, for example.

With this in mind, there's two different types of dislike - "Love to Hate", and "Wish this character wasn't there at all".

Viewers "loving to hate" a character is often great for a main villain. It's often exactly what the writer is aiming for with that villain.

It's when a lot of viewers would rather the character wasn't there at all that a character's quality is brought into serious dispute.


To give an example of an excellent, current "love to hate" character...

Spoiler for Madoka Magica spoiler:

Kyubey of Madoka Magica is a character that most viewers love to hate. And that's part of the reason why he works so well as the main villain of the work.

Now, to give an example of an arguably bad "Wish this character wasn't even there" character...

Spoiler for Ore no Imouto... ;):

A lot of Ore no Imouto fans, here on Anime Suki, expressed great pleasure at Kirino's absence from the recent Episode 13 of Ore no Imouto. It's not good for any character to be disliked to the point that people wish her/him/it to be and stay off-screen.

Now other anime fans here are free to disagree with the specific examples I gave above, and that's fine. I'm just citing them to help clarify what I mean by "love to hate" vs. "wish the character wasn't even there".


Beyond this, a bad character is one that doesn't serve his or her role well. A disappointingly underwhelming main villain in a dramatic series/movie would likely be considered a bad character. This is how many people felt about Darth Maul in Star Wars Episode 1, and why he could arguably be considered a bad character.


Static characters can be both good and bad, by the way, given all of the above. The thing with a static character, though, is that by his/her/its very nature, s/he's not going to be developing into the role, so s/he needs to fill it well right off the bat. First impressions are particularly important with static characters.

[Lime soda]

I do dislike Takuto but I'm not gonna go say he was a really bad character. I just have a huge bias against him and dislike him instinctively.

Spoiler for Star Driver:

Takuto does have a lot of positive character traits, like being upbeat, optimistic, determined, etc. But other then that, I couldn't relate to this guy at all because throughout most of the story I couldn't get a feel of a more human and flawed aspect from him. There wasn't much enjoyment to following the story with him leading as the main character. Maybe that's why people call him "dull" because his journey and personal struggle in Star Driver was so bland. That's why I had the problem with his winning streaks, because I was rooting for the Glittering Crux side and didn't get any satisfaction in seeing him win after the 10th time.

Perhaps half the problem could be the setup the creators did for him as a idol-like stud, who's suppose to be an amazing person. It almost reminds of the shojo male lead which Sugata and Takuto's character might have used as a model. I don't see a lot of guy viewers reacting positively to that kind of character even if it's just a similarity. It might not be too far a stretch since those two seem to enjoy a lot of the perks in their school life that most shojo male leads also get. He might even give some vibes that reminds me of a Mary Sue but I'm not sure he qualifies as one.

Spoiler for Evangelion:

I thought a number of fans actually responded negatively to Shinji's more badass development? A huge part of the TV series Evangelion was how different he was to all the other anime main characters. Half the complaints was that making him more heroic and badass from the get-go was killing the unique charm that Evangelion had.

[Neat Hedgehog]

I would say that making a "good" character has just about nothing to do with how unique it is, character development, or how "realistic" they are. There are a few reasons I'd say that:

1) There are only so many "unique" characters you can have before they start to have similarities, and I think we passed that point a few thousand years ago.

2) Some characters are already developed by the time the plot of the story takes place. Maybe they don't have to learn anything new to do what they need to do, maybe all the conflict just arises from having to do it. For instance, Bolt Crank is easily my favorite character ever, and he never really showed any significant "development" because he was already infinitely old and had an established personality.

3) Fiction doesn't have to be realistic (although it should be realistic within the fictional universe's constraints).

I would say the only part of making a good character is making sure the character behaves consistently. Just make sure they never break character, and they're well-made. How far that character extends is a different matter. Even if a character is used for little more than comic-relief one-liners, if it doesn't break character then it's still a "good" character, but a limited one.

Now, I'm not saying that people will necessarily like the character (that's entirely dependent on how the consumer responds to the character, and not everyone will like a character, no matter how good they may admit they are), but that's really all you need to make a character "good."

[Eater of All]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

Every character in a story has a specific role to play. Even a nameless character who's there simply to move the plot along has a role to play (i.e. to help move the plot along).

A notably good character is a character that has an important role to play, and he/she/it plays it well.

I agree; I think this statement can serve as the ultimate root indicator of whether a character is "good" or "bad". In addition to that Madoka Magica example, I believe *gasp* Makoto from School Days also plays his role well to the point that it's, well, phenomenal.

Still, judging a character by his ability to "play his role well" comes off as a bit ambiguous when used on any character other than those entrusted with simple 1-dimensional roles. A villain's duty, for instance, is usually to farm the maximum amount of rage and hate from the audience, and if he does this well he is usually a good villain. Same with, as Neat Hedgehog mentioned, comic-relief one-liner characters, though I'd consider those good "props" more than good characters.

But when you're dealing with protagonists or characters that are meant to be well-developed and exposed a long time, it's necessary to take into account factors such as whether or not they act consistently, act naturally, and can make the audience give half a fetid dingo's kidneys about them. They're all part of "playing the role well", but these are specifics, which, I believe, can usually be found in a good character. Of them, acting naturally is probably what I consider the most important. Too often have I seen characters that act like idiotic puppets merely doing whatever the Magical Hand of God (read: the author) forces them to do for the sake of fanservice, shits/giggles, whatever.


There's also the issue of when the author (given that he/she is remotely competant) gives a character a role that differs from what the audience perceives said character's role to be. But that is a whole 'nother wet can of worms about the relationshp between author and audience, so I'd rather not go there.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by Taufiq91

I come from a film school environment. i'm majoring in film and planning to enrol in NYU after college.

When i think of a good character, here's what i think:

-Someone who can deal with even the hardest problem he could find
-Someone who moves on from trouble and learns something valuable from it

Those aren't even close to being true. Just like a good character doesn't have to be likable, a good character also doesn't have to have a solution for everything, or even be the sort that learns from the past. After all, it's possible to be defined by your resistance to development (notably distinct from simply not developing).

[Archon_Wing]

A good character lets themselves be known. A bad character makes you wish you never knew them in the first place.

Of course, this depends on the importance of the characters to the story. Nameless mook that gets shot down to display the hero's power probably doesn't need any character development. Characters central to the plot require more.

Haruhi Suzumiya would probaly fall into a "good" character, because as annoying as she is, she's imposing, in manner and in style. Visual style can also actively help a character's prominence and personality. Indeed, when I see Haruhi put up her rapeface, I know shit's gonna happen.

It's also necessary to get into a character's mind and be able to map out their motivations; that way a character can make sense in context. Which is probably why Yuri in Angel Beats was way more interesting than Kanade.

Even someone as obnoxious as Asuka Langely Soryu from Evangelion, can be understood with this kind of context. Her rebuild counterpart is annoying, but without the context, so... I just end up hating her.

Bad characters cause a burden to the show. Shakugan no Shana II was not a bad show, but every time a certain large breasted chick appeared, the show went down the shitter. It was a rare case in which major characters suffered negative development to the point where you just wanted to slap them all. It's funny how the minor characters held up the show.

A bad character acts in a haphazard manner because the writers feel like they need to get something done. They will pointlessly ignore previous events and just allow shit to happen because well, they need something to happen! *Points at Shizuru from Mai-HiME* but the worst offender from that is especially Sister Yuraiko and whatever the hell that guy's name was; plot device incarnate!

I'd bring up people from Ore no Imouto, but a dead horse is a dead horse.

For really bad examples, you may check out Okami Kakushi (almost every character is awful).

Or perhaps School Days. Wait, actually don't. In these cases, I just feel like I'm watching puppets drawn by strings, instead of actual people. It's not like I bear any hate towards them, but when I start laughing at tragedy, I think the characters have failed to gain any credibility with me.

In these cases, I feel it is impossible to take events caused by these things seriously.

[Triple_R]

Originally Posted by Eater of All

I agree; I think this statement can serve as the ultimate root indicator of whether a character is "good" or "bad".

I'm glad you agree.

Still, judging a character by his ability to "play his role well" comes off as a bit ambiguous when used on any character other than those entrusted with simple 1-dimensional roles.

I more or less agree with you here. The more complex a character is, the more debatable it often becomes as to whether or not he plays his role well.

But when you're dealing with protagonists or characters that are meant to be well-developed and exposed a long time, it's necessary to take into account factors such as whether or not they act consistently, act naturally, and can make the audience give half a fetid dingo's kidneys about them.

I agree with you completely here.

Even a non-static character that develops a lot over time should develop in a believable manner that makes sense. They generally shouldn't do a complete 180 overnight, so to speak.

I'd say that the character in your avatar is one that develops nicely over time.

Spoiler for K-On character Azusa:

She starts out pretty stern, serious, and at times a bit uptight. But over the course of K-On, she becomes a bit more relaxed, a bit more at ease with the rest of her fellow band members, and you can see how the influence of her fellow band members and friends starts to rub off on her in believable ways.

Now, Azusa still remains an admirably responsible and prudent person through it all, but she lets her hair down (figuratively speaking) a bit more easily by the end of K-On!!, and that makes her a more well-rounded character, imo.

They're all part of "playing the role well", but these are specifics, which, I believe, can usually be found in a good character. Of them, acting naturally is probably what I consider the most important. Too often have I seen characters that act like idiotic puppets merely doing whatever the Magical Hand of God (read: the author) forces them to do for the sake of fanservice, shits/giggles, whatever.

Very well said.

You raise some great points here, and I think they make an excellent extension off of my more basic, core idea.

Thanks for sharing.

[Taufiq91]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

Those aren't even close to being true. Just like a good character doesn't have to be likable, a good character also doesn't have to have a solution for everything, or even be the sort that learns from the past. After all, it's possible to be defined by your resistance to development (notably distinct from simply not developing).

But i'm not saying that a character has to be likable to be good. Basically every "good" character (protagonists, antagonists, side characters) learns something and changes himself based on what he learns.

[mecharobot]

Context is everything. Functionality in the given anime format. Is the work trying to tell a story/stories or focus on character drama? Different kinds of shows not only can have, but require certain types of characters in them. The only thing that matters is that you should be able to understand what the characters are feeling and doing. Preferably while not breaking the illusion, which of course isn't reliant on writing alone (unless it's a novel).

[Reckoner]

An awful character is a character that the audience can't even stand to see on the screen and in fact decreases enjoyment of such a show. Kirino from Ore no Imouto is a good example.

An acceptable character fulfills the role he or she is given in a series. Usually though, this role can be fulfilled by another character if the author/writer decided so. An example would be pretty much any character who has been used a plot device, first and foremost.

A great character is a character that makes an entire show by them self. They manage to entertain and bring in audiences with their character appeal alone. Think Lelouch from Code Geass, or Spike Spiegel from Cowboy Bebop.

Originally Posted by Tempester

Spoiler for mild Neon Genesis Evangelion spoilers:

And then there's Shinji. He's another guy I happen to like and many people happen to dislike, but in a different way entirely. Shinji is hated for being a whiny, awkward indecisive brat who gets even worse in those respects throughout the original Neon Genesis Evangelion TV series. But he is a brat I can identify with. While some of us will probably think "This is AWESOME! Let's kick some angel butt!" when given the task to pilot an Eva unit, not all of us will be in that same boat and some of us will break under the responsibilities like Shinji does.

Shinji undergoes many developments throughout NGE, and is a fully rounded human character I wouldn't hesitate to label a good character.

I also noticed that some people only started to like Shinji in the Rebuild of Evangelion series, due to his apparent level up in extreme determination and 'manliness'. Since we're only halfway through Rebuild, I can't comment on whether Shinji's character has truly been improved upon, but I can't help but wonder if these fans value 'badass' qualities alone above everything else in a character.

Originally Posted by Lime soda

Spoiler for Evangelion:

I thought a number of fans actually responded negatively to Shinji's more badass development? A huge part of the TV series Evangelion was how different he was to all the other anime main characters. Half the complaints was that making him more heroic and badass from the get-go was killing the unique charm that Evangelion had.

There are a lot of people who have watched Rebuild who think Shinji is a better character now that he's a little more "GAR," but I can tell you these are the same people that pestered his character in the original NGE... AKA, people who missed the entire point of the original NGE. Just as people debated his character during NGE, people debate it in Rebuild, but this time, I would say the roles are reversed.

[justsomeguy]

Whether I think of a character as "good" or not depends on whether I find them believable as people. I hate to repeat what others have said, but Kirino is the most recent one I remember disliking. Let's see, she's a model, and an otaku, and a (badly written) tsundere. Her entire character rings false to me, since her entire purpose is to be an otaku wish fulfillment fantasy. Her ungrateful and bitchy personality kills the character entirely. Her only good point is her body.

Then there's Touma, who can stop any enemy with a speech and a punch. Seriously? This guy's a borderline delinquent with poor grades, yet he can think up of speeches and pick apart his opponent's life history in the middle of a fight? And it works well enough for him to get punches in? Right, and he attracts every girl he meets too. It reminds me of Kira Yamato, another horrible character. More author self-inserts and wish fulfillment fantasies. After watching all of Index and Railgun, I still cannot identify with Touma or understand his motivation to stick his nose in everything.

As for "Mary Sues," I don't mind them at all, since I do know a few people in real life who appear mostly flawless. It's only when they suddenly start acting inconsistent, spouting speeches about unrealistic fantasies, or interfering with other people's lives that they go bad.

[Gamer_2k4]

Originally Posted by Taufiq91

But i'm not saying that a character has to be likable to be good. Basically every "good" character (protagonists, antagonists, side characters) learns something and changes himself based on what he learns.

And I'm afraid I have to disagree. I intentionally drew a distinction between characters that don't develop and characters that resist development because it's a very important one. Someone like Itsuki or Mikuru in the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya doesn't develop simply because they're not given opportunities by the author to do so. That makes them bad characters (or at least, not great characters).

On the other hand, it's very possible to have a character that learns things but refuses to let those things change him. I guess an example might be Kamina from Gurren Lagann. No matter what new enemy comes up against him and his crew, he approaches it with the same thick-headed determination of "whatever this is, I'm just going to kill it or die trying." He's not a bad character because he has a history and complex motivations and so on, but he doesn't change who he is because that's just not what he does. Contrast Simon from the same anime, who reacts VERY dynamically based on the threat, the situation, and the events that come of those things.

[Taufiq91]

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

And I'm afraid I have to disagree. I intentionally drew a distinction between characters that don't develop and characters that resist development because it's a very important one. Someone like Itsuki or Mikuru in the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya doesn't develop simply because they're not given opportunities by the author to do so. That makes them bad characters (or at least, not great characters).

But there are many types of character development, and even if it's not present in the characters, it is present somehow in someways or another.

I do consider Mikuru having some sorts of character development. If you follow Alfred Hitchcock's method of character growth, you will see the future, mature Mikuru as a character development form of present Mikuru.

This is what i see in character development as a film student though.

[Master_Yoma]

I have know idea what make a good or a bad characters there are many that you cant tell like Lucy form Elfen Lied and Revy from Black Lagoon. There are some who do bad things for good reasons. But animes like The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya there really not good nor bad characters