In a world at war, main characters need to die.

[Zola.6197]

I’m not here for cheap shock value deaths for the sake of artificially creating an emotional impact, or, you know, getting rid of the characters you personally don’t like.

 

Moreover, the writers have killed major characters off in the past. They don’t need to cram in deaths for the sake of death. That would be horrible storytelling.

[Aodlop.1907]

48 minutes ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

primarily due to the fact that Martin seems to love killing characters just for the "shock" of characters dying

Not really. Characters in GoT die of the consequences of their actions, which is something we barely see in fiction and that's why it was so successful.

Ned's honor and idealism lead to terrible decision making and too much mercy with Cersei. Robb betrayed a man he should not have betrayed. Jon was befriending the wildlings which was a correct decision in the grand scheme of things, but of course not one the Night's Watch were going to take well.

They don't get killed randomly by stumbling on a rock and receiving permanent brain damage. They make mistakes and get punished for it.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

54 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Ned's honor and idealism lead to terrible decision making and too much mercy with Cersei.

Which is exactly why, after already negotiating terms for not executing him, the kitten kid king decides to just execute him despite the agreement to spare him because he had his change of mind. Totally not a shock killing.

55 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Jon was befriending the wildlings which was a correct decision in the grand scheme of things, but of course not one the Night's Watch were going to take well.

Did the books differ there from the show? because I recall big nice ballista shot shooting john out of the wall, which had nothing to do with any john's choice aside from standing in the wrong place at wrong time.

57 minutes ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Characters in GoT die of the consequences of their actions, which is something we barely see in fiction and that's why it was so successful.

No, GoT was killing off main characters at unprecedented scale, with making every character potentially disposable, which by accident worked because people hanged onto novelty and wanting to see if their favourite character survives till the end of it. But if you look at wider scale of writing analysis, you will notice that, GoT is not all that well written as it's success would make it look like.

[Aodlop.1907]

4 minutes ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

Which is exactly why, after already negotiating terms for not executing him, the kitten kid king decides to just execute him despite the agreement to spare him because he had his change of mind.

Which is consistent with Joffrey as a character, as he was shown to be a sadistic douchebag.

 

6 minutes ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

Did the books differ there from the show? because I recall big nice ballista shot shooting john out of the wall

This didn't happen in the show either. A random character did get rekt by a ballista but it sure wasn't Jon Snow.

Jon got stabbed after allowing the Wildlings to pass the wall in order to escape the Night King, a decision the Night's Watch deeply disagreed with.

 

7 minutes ago, Lord Trejgon.2809 said:

No, GoT was killing off main characters at unprecedented scale

Again, seldom without reason. Most of GoT's characters who died brought this outcome upon themselves and merely suffered the consequences of their decisions.

[Lord Trejgon.2809]

Just now, Aodlop.1907 said:

This didn't happen in the show either. A random character did get rekt by a ballista but it sure wasn't Jon Snow.

I guess the clip I have seen could have been modified to make it look like john snow being ballista'ed off the wall, so I can give you this one back.

[Astralporing.1957]

2 hours ago, Aodlop.1907 said:

Not really. Characters in GoT die of the consequences of their actions, which is something we barely see in fiction and that's why it was so successful.

Ned's honor and idealism lead to terrible decision making and too much mercy with Cersei. Robb betrayed a man he should not have betrayed. Jon was befriending the wildlings which was a correct decision in the grand scheme of things, but of course not one the Night's Watch were going to take well.

They don't get killed randomly by stumbling on a rock and receiving permanent brain damage. They make mistakes and get punished for it.

Actually, not quite. Sure, primary trope Martin was going against was that goodness always wins, so obviously Ned had to go as an example for why Martin considered it a dumb trope. Still, among other points he was trying to make was that popularity and likeability does not make someone immortal, and that in wars people can die due to completely dumb and unpredictable things. And the survivors are often decided by luck, nothing more.

So, in a way some characters were killed for the "shock" of them dying, but that shock was not a goal, but only a method to make a point.

[squeegee.4320]

I was about to kill Braham myself during LWS3.

[Kalavier.1097]

22 hours ago, Labjax.2465 said:

I disagree. I think that's a specific style/tone of storytelling, to be gritty and have main characters deaths, but it's not strictly necessary at all. In fact, I think it can sometimes be gratuitous and played out, to the point you're going, "Was this main cast of characters death really necessary or did they just want to pull your heartstrings and/or shock you?" (I've felt this way with at least one death in GW2)

And with a game of this kind, it's also just a logistical problem. The game is designed so it can go on as long as it's profitable. Too much killing off of main characters can lose interest of people invested in them, and add difficulties in replacing the lost characters (voice acting, writing, etc.).

You can show stakes just by introducing a normal person thoroughly enough and then having them die at the hand of the monster of the day. This game tends to use normal people as set pieces you rescue for karma though.

The other aspect of this is reasoning for the desire.

Is it wanted for X character to be hurt seriously/crippled/killed because

A: They are reckless and charge into any fight or threat without thinking.

B: Because people find them annoying and can't think of any way to improve characters other then stupidly killing them off.

[Gibson.4036]

26 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

 

B: Because people find them annoying and can't think of any way to improve characters other then stupidly killing them off.

Taimi’s illness could progress from degenerating her muscles to her mind. There’s very powerful Flowers for Algernon potential there.

[Gibson.4036]

2 hours ago, narwhalsbend.7059 said:

I was about to kill Braham myself during LWS3.

So glad you didn’t. I loved his comms messages during Bound By Blood.

[SinisterSlay.6973]

15 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

So glad you didn’t. I loved his comms messages during Bound By Blood.

And the 900+conversations he had with himself. 

Also, pretty sure Balon fell off a bridge in the books. Random death. Unless we go by the fan theory he was assassinated.

[Wolfb.7025]

A story doesn't need characters to die for it to be good or interesting. I even find it quite cheap when some media uses deaths just to hype the plot, there are, fo course, good and effective exceptions, but its not mandatory. I agree with this comment:

 

On 6/14/2022 at 9:14 AM, Zola.6197 said:

I’m not here for cheap shock value deaths for the sake of artificially creating an emotional impact, or, you know, getting rid of the characters you personally don’t like.

 

Moreover, the writers have killed major characters off in the past. They don’t need to cram in deaths for the sake of death. That would be horrible storytelling.

 

[Poormany.4507]

Don't have a problem with the current system and agree with others that killing off main characters frequently loses its impact and starts to become tiresome.

That said, I am against plot armor death/injury escapes that don't really make sense- Braham's at the end of IBS was the most noticeable. He didn't even get burnt or anything physically, compared to how permanently disfigured Ryland became. Sure the Spirits of the Wild gave him partial protection, but no scars/injuries at all just made it seem like writer's favor/plot armor.

[Kalavier.1097]

14 minutes ago, Poormany.4507 said:

Don't have a problem with the current system and agree with others that killing off main characters frequently loses its impact and starts to become tiresome.

That said, I am against plot armor death/injury escapes that don't really make sense- Braham's at the end of IBS was the most noticeable. He didn't even get burnt or anything physically, compared to how permanently disfigured Ryland became. Sure the Spirits of the Wild gave him partial protection, but no scars/injuries at all just made it seem like writer's favor/plot armor.

Being fair, he had help of the four major spirits + wasn't a champion nearly as long as Ryland was.

[EdwinLi.1284]

On 6/13/2022 at 3:23 PM, Super Hayes.6890 said:

I think Braham surviving his ordeal was not well received. Not because of liking or not liking his character, but because it's weird that he "walked away" from that. If not dead, I certainly didn't expect to find him concious after the whole Primordis's champion thing. I don't think the issue is them not killing off mains. It's them not putting real consequences on physically  and mentally traumatic stuff our allies go through.

I remember Braham is going through therapy at the end of EoD due to the incident. From what he said, it is a very slow recovery process with a bit of sounding as if it may require him to quit his life of fighting and may have lasting mental effects on him. We just don't know what kind yet since the Commander was in another continent during his therapy events and even during Post-EoD he still going through his therapy sessions.

Edited June 18, 2022 by EdwinLi.1284

[Kalavier.1097]

1 hour ago, EdwinLi.1284 said:

I remember Braham is going through therapy at the end of EoD due to the incident. From what he said, it is a very slow recovery process with a bit of sounding as if it may require him to quit his life of fighting and may have lasting mental effects on him. We just don't know what kind yet since the Commander was in another continent during his therapy events and even during Post-EoD he still going through his therapy sessions.

The dragon bash immediately afterwards he was depressed sounding/withdrawn in Hoelbrek. EoD confirmed he's continuing to deal with what's happened.

[Super Hayes.6890]

39 minutes ago, Kalavier.1097 said:

The dragon bash immediately afterwards he was depressed sounding/withdrawn in Hoelbrek. EoD confirmed he's continuing to deal with what's happened.

I only recently discovered that dialogue. I was refering to his condition in the instance after the battle. We should have needed to airlift him out of there. I'm glad they aren't ignoring the mental trauma. I just wish the instance was more reflective of the absolute devastation killing two elder dragons would have caused.

[EdwinLi.1284]

9 hours ago, Super Hayes.6890 said:

I only recently discovered that dialogue. I was refering to his condition in the instance after the battle. We should have needed to airlift him out of there. I'm glad they aren't ignoring the mental trauma. I just wish the instance was more reflective of the absolute devastation killing two elder dragons would have caused.

Mental trauma don't always appear instantly. Most cases they will appear after a certain amount of time after the incident that caused it. Not to mention how the signs of their mental trauma begins to show such as how long they are lacking sleep, if certain things maybe triggering them, and etc. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by EdwinLi.1284

[Ashen.2907]

Better fictional works than A Song of Ice and Fire (some of them written by Martin) have demonstrated that you do not need to kill off main characters in order to capture a sense of danger and risk. Character death is just the easiest to write and move on from.

 

[Taclism.2406]

 

On 6/15/2022 at 12:08 AM, narwhalsbend.7059 said:

I was about to kill Braham myself during LWS3.

 

But if you did, you wouldnt have the delight of ghost Eir herself telling him to shut up and grow up

Edited June 26, 2022 by Taclism.2406

[SoftFootpaws.9134]

Personal Story: Mass deaths of characters we knew.

LWS1: Mass death of characters we knew.

Heart of Thorns: Mass deaths of characters we knew, including main characters; high-impact deaths.

Path of Fire: Death of the player.

LWS4: Mass deaths of characters we knew, including main characters;; high-impact deaths.

IBS: Mass deaths of characters we knew, including main characters;; high-impact deaths.

EoD: I won't spoil but I hope you like depression.

This thread: More people should die.

 

I'm pretty sure there's more, I think some characters we knew died in LWS2 and LWS3 as well. Did you know that very few characters remain from the "Personal Story" era now?

 

So many NPCs have bit the dust over Guild War 2's lifetime that its labelled as "Anyone Can Die" on TVTropes, which is extemely rare for a video game that doesn't have excessive violence.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Hannelore.8153

[Gibson.4036]

On 6/26/2022 at 6:04 AM, Hannelore.8153 said:

This thread: More people should die.

 

Maybe it's a cover for really saying, "The characters I don't like should die."

[The Greyhawk.9107]

7 hours ago, Gibson.4036 said:

Maybe it's a cover for really saying, "The characters I don't like should die."

Maybe?

[Ishmael.6740]

Looks at Sieran, Apatia, Eir and Trahearne

[Ehecatl.9172]

It's actually almost never a better idea to kill a character off than it is to keep them alive. This is because a living character can be used to create more narrative while a dead one generally can't. When choosing to kill a character you have to weigh how much drama and motivation you get from their single death against a potentially limitless amount of drama and story telling you could've gotten out of them alive.

 

For example I think killing Trahearne was a mistake. His death was shocking but didn't actually DO anything to advance the story. All it resulted in was Logan replacing him. Meanwhile we lost one of the more developed characters and the Sylvari's single most important character to their race short of the Pale Tree herself. The Sylvari lost a lot and gained very little. Just a lackluster funeral and a broken sword that never got narratively replaced.

 

The early seasons of GoT worked so well because every major character death was masterfully constructed to push the story of every other character forward or to make the entire cast pivot in response to the unexpected. Robb's death wasn't just shock value, it had a massive impact on Jon's story, more or less ended the War of Five Kings, set up the fall of the North as a major player in the story, forced Arya's story to change trajectory, and in the books kicked off Lady Stoneheart.

 

A good writer needs to be selective in what characters they kill off and why. Every character is a pool of resources at the writer's disposal that can be used to create more story. If you burn through it fast for shock value or to breed a nihilistic dread in your audience you run the risk of ending up like The Walking Dead where 70% of your cast are new characters barely anyone cares about.