What are your thoughts on exploitable characters?

[CheertheSecond]

What I meant is characters that have little agency (due to their upbringing or their circumstances), have little knowledge about the current world and meta or have little mean to gather said information. These characters can be easily exploited by the MCs. Since they couldn't know better, their future and livelihood are at the mercy of the higher-hand players, be it the MCs or the other major characters. MCs could set them up to be scapegoats and they could do nothing to protect themselves or their family. Sometimes, MCs could adopt them into their entourage. Other times, they are unfortunate cases where the MCs would help them and boost their own reputation. MCs could discover something precious these characters are possessing but do not know the true value of their possessions and thus being taken advantage of by the MCs.

In short, they are innocent bystanders that are available resources that major characters can use for their agenda and whatever shortcomings that may happen to these characters incur no negative consequences to the MCs or the characters that caused them.

What are your thoughts on these characters? Should there be more of these characters or less?

 

[StoneInky]

What I meant is characters that have little agency (due to their upbringing or their circumstances), have little knowledge about the current world and meta or have little mean to gather said information. These characters can be easily exploited by the MCs. Since they couldn't know better, their future and livelihood are at the mercy of the higher-hand players, be it the MCs or the other major characters. MCs could set them up to be scapegoats and they could do nothing to protect themselves or their family. Sometimes, MCs could adopt them into their entourage. Other times, they are unfortunate cases where the MCs would help them and boost their own reputation. MCs could discover something precious these characters are possessing but do not know the true value of their possessions and thus being taken advantage of by the MCs.

In short, they are innocent bystanders that are available resources that major characters can use for their agenda and whatever shortcomings that may happen to these characters incur no negative consequences to the MCs or the characters that caused them.

What are your thoughts on these characters? Should there be more of these characters or less?

Depends on the tone of the story. But just like every other trope, it's bad when authors go overboard. At some point it turns into 'every character except the MC is stupid so that the MC looks smarter in comparison'.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

Depends on their use (and, even more on their frequency of use). Used well and sparingly, they are great. Used constantly or badly and they will drag an already weak story down below the bottom of the heap.

 

[LilRora]

If it is done properly, those characters are fine. Particularly important here is presentation - if the character is there to make the main character look better, it's probably very bad. What I particularly don't like however are stories where the main character has those traits and keeps getting exploited. More often than not they come across as stupid rather than uninformed.

 

[Valmond]

Depends on the tone of the story. But just like every other trope, it's bad when authors go overboard. At some point it turns into 'every character except the MC is stupid so that the MC looks smarter in comparison'.

So, what you are saying is. Make every character and the MC stupid.

 

[CheertheSecond]

So, what are you are saying is. Make every character and the MC stupid.

Depends on the tone of the story. But just like every other trope, it's bad when authors go overboard. At some point it turns into 'every character except the MC is stupid so that the MC looks smarter in comparison'.

I disagree.

Have no mean to gather sufficient info to give an accurate enough decision and avoid disasters is not synonym to stupid.

The same for being too weak to defend yourself. You can not expect a normal person to survive a landslide and a nuke at ground zero. It's unrealistic.

 

[StoneInky]

I disagree.

Have no mean to gather sufficient info to give an accurate enough decision and avoid disasters is not synonym to stupid.

The same for being too weak to defend yourself. You can not expect a normal person to survive a landslide and a nuke at ground zero. It's unrealistic.

Yeah, that's why I said it's only bad when authors go overboard.

Only the MC continuously knowing the right answers? While nobody else has sufficient knowledge? While the answer is often extremely simple? The authors themselves might think it's some complex, fancy genius MC stuff, but it is usually not. And real people... are harder to trick than you think. You may be able to trick one. But never all.