Tag Archives: character building

My question would be which weapon (preferably one with a blade, but basically any that would be helpful in a duel and maybe on a battlefield) could be handled quite easily by an untrained woman so it could be fought with an a rather short amount of time.

When you’re
simply asking for dueling weapons you can train quickly on, the first answer is
going to be the pistol. Depending on the era, there’s a massive array of
different swords and knives which were used for ritualized duels, this is
without resorting to settings that pick a dueling weapon based on some cultural

If you
have a setting where people duel with arming swords, then that’s what your
character would need to train in to use one. If your setting uses rapiers, épées
or lightsabers, again, that’s the weapon they’re going to use.

isn’t simply one on one melee combat. It’s a ritualized form of combat with its
own rules and procedures. Depending on the setting, this could be as simple as
declaring it, showing up and murdering your opponent, or it could be a complex
back and forth, of seconds trying to talk their duelists out of doing something
profoundly stupid, then, if they fail, serving as witnesses to confirm that the
procedures were followed correctly.

thing that’s important to understand is that duels are a form of dispute
resolution. Roll your eyes if you want, but this is an important concept to remember. You don’t duel someone for fun
(outside of an MMO), you duel because you perceive harm from someone else’s
actions. Within that context, a major concept in the duel is that it’s supposed
to be a, “fair fight.”

The idea
of a fair fight is something we generally criticize pretty harshly, but duels
are rare moment where it applies. Unlike in normal combat, the participants
need to follow the proper steps and observe the appropriate rules, because if they
don’t, it’s no longer a legitimate duel. This is a somewhat unusual concept
when it comes to combat, because usually, last whatever standing is the winner.
But, because it’s about resolving a dispute, duels create a very different
standard for victory.  If the person who
violated the rules prevailed, then they didn’t, “win,” instead they’re simply a
murderer (or if the duel wasn’t to the death, then the dispute remains).

In most
circumstances, duelists would have matched or “equivalent” weapons and

weapons are pairs. For example: A brace of dueling pistols is a pair of
identical handguns. Depending on the timeframe they may be completely identical
or they could be aesthetically distinct variants of the same design. For
example, a pistol with silver filigree and an ivory grip, matched to one with a
gold filigree and a rosewood grip. I’m using pistols as an example here, but
matched dueling blades did (and do) exist as well.

weapons would be where both duelists have a specific type of weapon. If you’re
talking about seventeenth century Europe, you’d be talking about the rapier or
épée. This can appear to be the duelist picking their weapon, but it’s actually
reversed. The local traditions regarding dueling would dictate the weapon, and
the duelist would be limited to finding an appropriate blade.

If this
sounds a little circular, that’s because it is. Remember, a duel is a ritual
(even if it’s not usually described in those terms), and the participants must
follow the proper steps. If there’s a nominally agreed upon weapon for dueling
in that civilization, nation, or city, then that is what your character would
need to carry. They don’t get to, “pick.” In cases where dueling was rare
enough that there wasn’t a single automatic choice, then one of the
participants (depending on the local traditions, this could be the one issuing
the challenge, receiving it, or the seconds) would pick the weapons used. In
these cases, it’s entirely possible the dueling weapons wouldn’t belong to the
participants, instead being provided by some third party.

on the setting, it’s entirely possible the weapon chosen would be something
that saw battlefield use. But, again, the weapon used for dueling is decided by
the setting, not your character. Even if she had a preference, she could not
rely on taking it into a duel, unless it was the “appropriate dueling weapon.”
That means picking a weapon that’s easy to train on is, basically, not

When it
comes to training, there’s an immediate problem: You’re not training to achieve
some kind of baseline proficiency. At least, not if you intend to survive. You’re
training to be better than your opponent, thing is, your opponent’s skill isn’t
a static threshold. If they’ve been training to kill people with a blade for
years, there’s no way you can make that up in a couple weeks of intensive

You can’t
rush training, not really. You can fully commit to it, and come out better than
someone who’s just going through the motions. But you can’t simply jump ahead.
You need to learn the basics, get those down, and move on to the more advanced
stuff. If you don’t, then when the moment comes, you’ll blank, and make
mistakes or freeze up. The hard part to grasp about training is, you’re not
simply seeing someone demonstrating a technique and learning it, the way you’d commit a book to memory. You’re taking that element, copying it, integrating it, making it a permanent
part of your muscle memory and the way you move, until you can execute it without thinking. There is
no way to force that to happen faster without sacrificing the quality of your
training, and your ability to actually apply it in the field. Or as my sensei
used say, “you can’t cram for muscle memory.”


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Hey there love your blog. Quick question I’m trying to write a fanasty book where one of the main characters use both swords & guns. A katana on his left hip & a short katana on his right aswell as carrying a desert eagle on his person but he lives in a world where technology & magic exist except firearms are illegal. Is it possible to write scene’s where this combintaion works?

The “short katana” would be a wakizashi. It’s a distinct
weapon in its own right and was traditionally part of a samurai’s accoutrements,
though this is probably the least significant issue here.

The combination works in so far as you remember that real
people make really horrible decisions in an attempt to seem cool. The Desert
Eagle is a very flashy, somewhat terrible, gun. You carry one as an aesthetic
choice, not because you want to actually kill someone with it. It’s big, bulky,
unreasonably heavy, and stupidly expensive. The only point to owning one is to
say, “look at what a badass I could be.”

The katana is a very flashy, somewhat terrible, sword. Stop
me if this one sounds familiar; this is a sword you carry as an aesthetic
choice, not because you actually want to kill someone with it, but because you
want to say, “look at what a badass I could be.”

In both cases you’re talking about items that present the
concept of a weapon far more valuable, lethal, and cool, than the real articles
offer. With the katana, there’s also all of the associated cultural baggage. The
katana is, literally, a holy symbol in Shinto. If your character is carrying
one for religious reasons, that’s one thing; but, if they’re looking for “the
best sword,” then, it’s a terrible choice.

It’s also probably worth pointing out that both the Desert
Eagle and the katana require two hands to wield properly. Desert Eagles have a “floating
mag,” meaning the magazine remains somewhat loose in the grip, while locked. If
the operator fails to properly stabilize the pistol, this can result in the
pistol failing to feed, meaning it won’t properly load the next round into the
chamber, and forcing the user to cycle the slide manually. This isn’t an issue
if you’re using the pistol as designed, but if you’re trying to fire it one
handed, because your other hand is occupied with a katana, it could easily
result in a dead man’s click long before the magazine is empty.

There’s a similar issue with the katana, the design works
with the idea that the wielder will be using it with both hands. Specifically
you use your index and middle ring and pinky finger on your off-hand to control the blade,
while using your main hand for power. The problem with wielding one single
handed should be immediately obvious; you can flail around with it, but you can’t
really get much value from it that way. At that point, you’d almost be better
off with a machete, simply because it would offer a more comfortable grip, and would
be easier to swing.

While wakizashi are frequently matched with a katana and sold
together, they’re not intended for simultaneous
use. The wakizashi had distinct uses, mostly so the samurai would have a blade
they could actually use in doors, but it wasn’t supposed to be dual wielded
with a katana. Think of it like buying a kitchen knife set, sure there’s eight
knives in there, but you’re not going to be using all of them together at once.

I’ll add, I’ve got nothing against a character that has a
reason to use a katana. If it’s a badge of office, a family heirloom, a sign of
their order or training, that’s fine. It’s the idea that “this is the best
possible sword ever,” which I object to. It’s a two-handed sword. It’s not
particularly great. It has a dedicated martial style, predicated on using very
fragile blades, (and historical katanas are exceedingly fragile).

Finally, if you’ve got a setting where firearms are outlawed,
there’s a few problems specific to the Desert Eagle. I mentioned that they were
large and expensive, so let’s break those down a little. First, these are
massive pistols. A Mark XIX Desert Eagle weighs just under four and a half
pounds. For a pistol that is comically heavy. This is also a gun that is over a
foot long. These are large handguns.
They are difficult to conceal. If you’re living in a setting where owning a gun
is illegal, this is the last thing you want to be carrying on the street. (They’re
pretty terrible carry weapons in the real world as well.)

On the current market, with firearms that are legal to buy, a
used Desert Eagle will set you back at least $1,200 ($1,400 to $1,700 is more
likely, for a gun in decent shape). In contrast, if you’re shopping for a solid
conceal carry pistol you can expect to spend somewhere between $400 and $500.
Even high grade “tactical” pistols rarely break $1k, unless they’re collector’s
items (or SIGs). Most “cool” pistols you see on TV probably cost between $600
and $1k.

If you’re wondering why SIGs manage to command higher prices,
it’s because (in most cases) they’re remarkably high quality. I’ve had issues
with the American produced SIG Sauer P226s, but in general SIGs are worth the

The Desert Eagle really isn’t worth the money. As I said
earlier, these are guns you buy to show off, not because you’re looking for a
carry weapon.

And, all of this is before you step back and apply the
economics for a setting where getting a handgun is illegal. At that point, you’re
talking about a gun that could easily cost more than an older model car. Those
economics skew against you even harder every time your character pulls the

Desert Eagles come chambered in a couple different rounds.
There’s .357 magnum, .44 magnum, and .50AE. (Technically, there’s also .41
magnum and .440 variants as well.) Gun stores aren’t going to stock a lot, but
you can buy them if you’re using something chambered for it. Also worth noting,
if you’re dropping the hammer on a .50AE Desert Eagle, it will set you back
more than a dollar per bullet. (The current, actual cost in the US is ~$1.35
per round.) But, if you’re in a setting where firearms aren’t easily available,
your black market’s going to need to focus on rounds they can actually sell.
They may keep a little bit around
(and would charge way more than the
price I just quoted), but once it’s gone, getting your hands on more could be
very difficult. In this sense, it would be much safer if your character was
using a firearm that matched to the common calibers in their setting. The
reasoning is, that your black market may not keep much .50AE around (if they
keep any at all), but they probably will stock 9mm, .45, or whatever your
setting’s cops use. It’ll cost substantially more than it would in the real
world, but it will be something your character can buy. It also won’t leave
behind freakishly expensive shell casings every time they open fire. A string
of killings involving a .50AE pistol? That will bring the cops down on their
contacts looking for someone who’s been scavenging around the black market for
those 12.7mm rounds far faster than a few people who got plugged with a black
market .45.

To a lesser extent, the katana and wakizashi have a similar
issue. Yeah, sure, they’re cool, I guess, but they’re also memorable. If your
character is using a sword (and that’s common in the setting), having the cops
looking for someone using a guy with a katana will result in a much shorter
search ending at their doorstep than someone with a random non-descript sword
or even something like a machete.

If the katana is enchanted, then sure, your character is kind
of stuck with it (up to a point), but it’s still a weapon they’d need to be
somewhat careful about hiding, and more careful about using.

So, yeah, it’s entirely plausible that you’d have a character
who thought all of these were a good idea. If you have a setting where they
could actually get their hands on them is a different question.

If you’re thinking they could use the weapons together, then
no. They could switch between them, but trying to use them all at once would
result in wild flailing, and a malfunctioning pistol.

I can think of, at least, one legitimate reason why your
character might carry around a Desert Eagle (or a katana) in a setting like you’re
describing, and that’s to scare people. If you’re an enforcer for some shadowy
criminal organization, then being able to shove a 14 inch, chrome, monster gun
up someone’s nose is an effective option (and yes, the Desert Eagle is a model of handgun you can press
into someone without disabling it). But, even then, they’d probably carry
something far more practical for times when they were there to kill someone,
and not just put the fear of Elmer Keith into them.

Depending on the setting (or the organization they work for),
then they might carry and use a katana for that kind of intimidation instead.
For instance: If they were Yakuza, it would make some sense. At that point, you
might reasonably get a character who
used that exact set of weapons for intimidation, and would actually use the
katana or wakizashi when provoked.

In general, though, there’s nothing wrong with a character
thinking this is all a good idea. It’s not. But, if they could afford it, they
might go chasing after that concept anyway.


EDIT: As @fox-bright kindly reminded me, it’s the third and fourth fingers on your off hand that you use to control a katana, rather than the first and second. Sorry about that.

This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

hi i was wondering if you new anything about how to write from the point of view of a sniper? like in what would be going through their head as they take the shot? thanks :)

This probably isn’t going to be a particularly satisfying
answer for you; but you need to learn about your character’s profession. This
is a mandatory step when you’re creating, nearly, any character. The old advice
is to, “write what you know.” The restrictive way to interpret it would be
thinking you can’t write someone fundamentally different from yourself, which
isn’t true, you simply need to do some research, and learn about who your
character would be.

In this case, that means looking into the mindset of
snipers. There’s a fair amount of non-fiction material on the subject out there.
Offhand, Chris Kyle’s autobiography, and a couple books from Nicholas Irving come to mind. These are blind recommendations, I haven’t read any, but, they
should help you with understanding the mindset of a modern sniper. Obviously,
if your character lacks a military background, then these books might not be
exactly what you’re looking for, but it should point you in the right
direction. There’s also a much wider range of literature on the subject, if modern
day US Special Forces really isn’t on point.

Depending on what you dig up, the answer may be as simple as
simply running the math, adjusting, and then putting a round out there, without
any real reflection on what that bullet is doing.

The best source of information would be people who have
actually been snipers (or done whatever job you’re researching). You may need
to parse out and analyze who they are as a person from what they’ve written,
but they would be the ones who knew what they were thinking.


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

How realistic or unrealistic are battle couples, provided they have sufficient mental discipline? Is it even realistic to have two people working together to fight the same opponent hand-to-hand, or is focusing on both your opponent and your partner too much? What if one person is a distraction (by fighting the opponent head-on) so the other person can stab them in the back, so to speak? Is that too risky?

You’re asking a lot of questions here and most of them have absolutely nothing to do with having a romantic relationship with your working partner.

Some things first:

1) The relationship between a battle couple and any platonic working partnership are not really any different in most cases except that they share a romantic relationship.

2) You don’t need a functional or professional partnership or partnership at all to fight in a group or gang up on an individual.

3) Fraternization just as often falls into casual sex as it does a romantic relationship, if not more often.

4) Almost none of what you’re asking has to do with romance.

Falling in love on the battlefield happens, it happens a lot. Combat is a high stress environment and people are people. Just because something isn’t a good idea or is unprofessional doesn’t mean it won’t happen, it just means you’ve got an added benefit of complications.

Some people can handle romantic relationships with an SO who also engages in combat, even one who engages in combat with them. Those are the ones who can compartmentalize between being on the battlefield and being off it. However, if they can’t (there is a very good possibility that they can’t) then it becomes a real problem. When they can’t handle the stress or the distraction, if they can’t put the romance aside, then their relationship puts everyone at risk, including their mission.

When you’re fighting, especially with a goal in mind, one person’s life cannot be more important than the mission.

It takes a significant amount of trust for a battle couple to function because their romantic partner cannot afford to jump in and save them when things start going sideways. Both participants need to be the kind of people that when the choice is between their partner or the mission, they choose the mission.

This concept is one that’s very difficult to grasp if you’re setting out to write a romance, because most of the normal steps you’d take to fulfill that romance will leave the battle couple hamstrung and unable to function. You can’t have the guy or girl jumping in to save their guy or girl when it looks like they’re about to die, they have to trust their partner to save themselves.

That is hard.

This is a very difficult state to handle emotionally. Imagine, you are at risk of losing your loved one at all times and you can’t do a damn thing about it. You can’t obsess or brood over it, because you can’t afford that kind of distraction. Whether they’re right in front of you or on a battlefield somewhere else, you can’t think about it. You’ve got to focus on keeping yourself alive, because that keeps everyone else alive, and by doing what you can you help to ensure the survival of both your loved one and your team. You’ve got to do your job, even when you’re about to lose everything you ever gave a damn about and its within your power to stop it.

A true battle couple is one who exists in complete equality, trust, and partnership with their significant other on the battlefield. They keep a cool head and a cool heart while in the midst of gut wrenching emotional turmoil. They don’t baby, they don’t hover, they don’t keep a careful eye on, and they don’t obsess until the fighting’s over. They don’t sacrifice their own life or their own body to keep their lover from getting injured. They don’t break position.

If they do any of the above, they will both die and so will anyone who is relying on them. If you are writing characters where the relationship is more important than the mission, more important than the team, more important than surviving the fight in front them then you have, narratively speaking, a serious problem.

This is not a bad one to have in a story or an unrealistic one in life, romantic relationships on the battlefield are built around this concept, but it does need to be addressed. If its not, tragedy strikes.

If you’re writing a battle couple, you need two characters who when faced with the choice between saving their loved one and stopping the bomb from blowing up downtown Manhattan, they pick the bomb.

And, in fiction, that’s not normally what love is.

It also has to be both of them, they both need this very specific outlook to function while in combat together. If one has it, but the other doesn’t then tragedy strikes. If neither have it, tragedy strikes. They need to be on the same page.

The reason why the military and other combat groups prohibit fraternization is because romantic relationships inevitably fuck everything up. If they can handle it, great. However, the all to likely outcome, for either one or both parties involved, is they can’t.

They’ll do it anyway though, because people are people.

When you engage in violence, that violence and training separates you from the general population. You’ve been through experiences that most people cannot comprehend or relate to and that makes maintaining relationships difficult. There’s a lot to be said for being in a relationship with someone of similar background, who can empathize with your experiences, who has been through what you’ve been through. You don’t need to look much further than the rate of divorce among the FBI or CIA to understand just how difficult maintaining a relationship in an incredibly stressful environment is.

As humans, we crave having a partner we can relate to. With whom we can share our secrets. Who won’t judge us for the terrible things we’ve done. When you have to rely on each other for survival, attraction, desire, even love becomes easy. It’s often a false sense of connection built on desperation, one which if born inside the environment won’t function outside of it, but that doesn’t mean it feels any less real.

When you might die tomorrow, sometimes you just want to feel something, anything at all, and that’s where the causal sex comes in.

Casual Sex:

In mixed gender units, casual sex is really common. Not romantic relationships, mind. It’s just sex, and it doesn’t go any further than that. It’s desperation, it is all about sensation, and a reminder for the participants that they are alive.

When dealing with these types of relationships in your fiction, its important to remember that the emotional component is neither needed nor wanted. They’re not looking for comfort. They’re looking for sensation, to feel something before they (potentially) die.

Because the author controls everything in their fictional world, it can often become difficult to remember and insert qualities like the random chance of dealing with the unknown. We’ve often got characters that are necessary to the plot, who become identified as “safe”, and behave differently because they know they’re going to live through the fight or battle to get to the end of the story.

It becomes important to learn to live in the moment. To live in the twilight hour on the night before a battle, to be unsure, when the character doesn’t know what will happen next. If you don’t then there is a whole array of human emotions, experiences, and terrible choices that you’ll never touch on in your fiction.

If you don’t, you’ll be all the poorer for it.

The Two on One Battle: Real.

You don’t need to be in a relationship, or even particularly well-trained, to accomplish this. Two versus one happens a lot and the pair off usually wins because eight limbs trumps four. One person locks up the individual, the other circles and attacks on vectors they can’t defend from. We’re social animals. Our natural instincts will help us more when we’re fighting in a group as opposed to fighting alone.

1 v Group is a bad situation to be in if you’re the one, and it doesn’t matter how well trained you are. Numbers will kill you.

Part of the reason why you see single characters fighting groups in movies and other fiction is to establish that they’re great fighters. The problem is that this has become so widespread that we now think fighting a group is easier than fighting a single, skilled individual. This is untrue. The group will kill you because the individuals within the group can move onto vectors that cannot be defended.

What your describing in your question in a battle between three people in a two on one is normal behavior, its standard tactics. However, you’re also demonstrating the exact kind of behavior for why two people engaged in a romantic relationship should not be on the battlefield together.

If you’re ever sitting there and wondering if something that is a basic and bog standard tactic is now, suddenly, too dangerous because your characters are dating then that is the exact problem.

Things that are normal suddenly become too risky, and the focus transitions to preserving their lover’s life rather than making use of their significant advantage over their enemy.

That is the exact kind of thinking which will cost them their lives, and for no benefit at all.

Good job.


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron. Every contribution helps keep us online, and writing. If you already are a Patron, thank you.

Seasons greetings to you! Q: how do pull off the Reveal of the Hidden Villain? The heroine didn’t know she was the Big Bad ’til Part 3, nor was she visible or near the heroine. They do have a personal connection, but my trouble is showing that. D:

I don’t usually nitpick the way a question’s phrased, but in
this case, “The heroine didn’t know she was the Big Bad,” is an ambiguous way
to phrase it. This could mean either that your protagonist didn’t know who the
villain was, or that she didn’t realize that she was in fact the antagonist all
along. Of the options, the latter is more of a head trip, so I’ll hit that too
on the way out.

When it comes to structuring a story, where the villain is ambiguous,
identifying them will be a persistent thread through the story up to that
point. It may be the entire focus. A very loose structure these kinds of
stories work with is that your protagonists spend their first act working to
identify their foe, the second act learning about them and formulating plans to
go after them, and the final act putting their plans into motion, and
scrambling to pull out a victory.

I say, “very loose,” because you can step back and really
mess with the structure. Such as having your characters know who they’re going
after from the beginning but working to prove it, or learning a lot about who
their foe is without actually putting a name or face to them (which is what you’re

If you want to look at this in an overly mechanical way;
your characters are going to be spending the story trying to collect
information. That’s the currency that drives their story. They need pieces of
it to put together who is responsible. Missing even a few pieces along the way
can critically undermine their ability to accurately anticipate who they’re
working against. This has a knock-on effect of further distorting their
expectations and perceptions of what’s to come. One mistaken assumption or
missed clue can lead to erroneous assumptions that form the basis for theories
that are further removed from the truth.

Most good mysteries operate off a very careful formula: The
author drops the evidence about what really happened in front of the
protagonists and the readers, mixed into a larger collection of red herrings,
and relevant information that the characters do seize upon initially.

Bad mysteries will usually withhold the information necessary
to contextualize the rest, and then pull it out in an effort to keep the
audience off balance. Often with the intent of making the protagonist seem
preternaturally intelligent. Really, all the author did was lie to the
audience, and then stick their pet in the spotlight.

In case it’s unclear: Please, do not do this. Having your
audience get ahead of your biggest reveal is not the end of the world. Sure,
some will be smug about it, but realizing the author was, in fact, playing fair
with their puzzles can make the material infinitely more interesting on a
return trip.

Also, it’s basically impossible to hide anything from your
audience. If you have a character who’s secretly the villain, a savvy reader
will realize it due to Ebert’s Law of Conservation of Characters (assuming you’re
writing with that in mind). The easiest way around this is to make sure that
your secret villain is actually pulling double duty, and not just there to be
the antagonist, but we’ll come back to that in a second.

Roger Ebert’s Law on Conservation of Characters holds that
every character in a film (or any media, really) needs to serve a purpose, so
by eliminating each character who serves a necessary narrative function, you
can immediately identify the killer/traitor/secret santa/whoever you’re trying
to hide from the audience.

The thing about this is, it is really good advice. Good writing is, usually, concise, clear, and
easy to understand. You’re communicating with people, and presenting as little unnecessary
information as possible is a strength. (The red herrings in mysteries are an
exception to this, but you should still strive to deliver them as quickly and
concisely as you can.) It’s worth remembering, some of the texture for your
material is necessary for selling the
scene. But, you need to be asking yourself, “do I really need this line?”

The same is true of characters. If a character doesn’t need
to be in your story, they probably shouldn’t be there. This is more pronounced
with films, where each character indicates that they were important enough to
include in the story and pay an
actor to stand there and deliver the lines. It’s one of the reasons why you’ll
often see minor characters excised from adaptations, while their only critical
dialog is migrated to one of the more important characters. With this in mind,
Ebert would run through the cast and simply look for someone who wasn’t doing
anything useful. Thing is, this does work in writing as well.

This is what I meant about the antagonist pulling double
duty. It’s not enough to show that they’re the villain, if you really want to
hide it from the audience, they also need to be the mentor, love interest,
perky sidekick, CGI “comic relief” atrocity, or the protagonist.

Once you know what their role in the story is, and the fact
that they’re also secretly the villain, you have a lot of room to work with, and you can set up some fantastic subtext
tension for your villain, that is only obvious on a second reading.

For example: if your protagonist is being mentored by the
villain, and the villain genuinely cares about the protagonist’s growth as an
individual. They have an immediate conflict of interest. They may honestly want
the protagonist to grow, learn, and have a better ability to understand what
they’re looking at, while still advancing their own agenda that the protagonist

When you’re working with something like this, it’s important
to remember that people can want two separate things, and due to the actions of
others, those goals can come into conflict with each other. It doesn’t mean
that you immediately pick a side, but it will put some hard decisions in front
of you. Or, your characters in this case.

If you’re still wondering how to tie your characters
together, it’s the connections like this that you’re probably looking for. At a
very simple level, “how do you show a connection between two character?” You
put those characters in a room and have them interact. You let them show their
relationship with each other. Whether that’s romantic, platonic, mentor/pupil,
patron/client, or just shared history. But, you show that.

The other option is, of course, that your heroine is also
the villainess. There’s a lot of ways you can run with this idea, that range
from cheesy to profound. The cheesy end includes things like a character who
swaps between two separate persona. Without something to justify it, this
specific approach tends to undermine the whole, “I didn’t know I was the villain
all along,” thing. There are ways to pull it off, where someone ends up
investigating their own under the table operations, without realizing it,
because they’ve insulated themselves from that level of their criminal
enterprise. For instance, you could have a corrupt cop, who knows they’re a
corrupt cop, but doesn’t realize that the drug dealers they’re investigating
actually work for their proxies. A situation like that wouldn’t, usually, last
long, because one of their minions would ask them what they’re doing.

Another classic option is the doppelganger. This may simply
be a copy of the character from somewhere else, a supernatural simulacra, an
alternate version from the future, whatever. There are uses for stuff like
this, but it’s tricky to work with. I’d scratch it off the list entirely if things
like mirror universes didn’t also allow you to play around with a radically
different interpretation of your characters. In traditional folklore the doppelganger
was a sign of one’s impending death (though not at the hands of the doppelganger
itself). Make of that what you will.

Finally, you can have a protagonist who is, in fact, the
villain, as a result of their actions. Heroes and villains exist on a very fine
line. The actions of the hero are sanctioned based on the context of those
actions. When you start to strip that context, or reveal it as a lie, it
becomes very possible to present someone as the hero only to realize, at the
end, that they really were a villain all along.

There’s two ways to approach this. The first is that your
character comes to their villainy over the course of the story. By abandoning
their principles in pursuit of victory. The cliché is, “the road to hell is
paved with good intentions,” though I much prefer Buckminster Fuller’s, “Those
who play with the devil’s toys will be brought by degrees to wield his sword.” However
you want to abstract this, the arc is that your character grows from a hero
into the new villain. It’s one hell of a third act revelation, when they can
step back and in a moment of introspection, realize they’d become what they
fought against.

The other approach is that your character was always the
villain. This may be that your noble freedom fighter was, in fact, a ruthless
terrorist, who distorted the facts to soothe their own conscience. They may
have viewed their actions as justified, when they actually violently
overreacted at every turn. Their casual cruelty may have been the very thing
that fed the movement they were working against, justifying the group they perceived
as the villains.

To quote Michael Douglas’ Bill Foster in Falling Down (1993), “I’m the bad guy?” “How’d
that happen?”


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

Hi! I am writing a character who is new too special operations group of witches responisble aprehending magic & monsters. For plot reasons they engage in a firefight vs humans. How do i write the thoughts of a character reluctant to shoot but has to

By writing a character who is reluctant to shoot, but needs to.

There are many potential contexts where you may be required to do something you don’t want to.

A character who signed up to kill monsters may not like being forced to open fire on civilians who are attacking them, but they may not have a choice. For some it is enough that they’re in danger, or that their friends and colleagues are under threat.

This gets especially muddy if the normal humans are being manipulated via magic, or some monstrous compulsion. These are the same people your character signed on to protect, and in order to save others, they’ll need to kill these victims.

How your character deals with this is a major element of what defines them as a character. If they’re well disciplined, it probably won’t happen in the moment, but in the days and weeks after the incident, they’re going to need to find a way to come to terms with what they’ve done. That could be simply rationalizing it as a “them or me,” or “for the greater good,” or it could be a real sign that this line of work just isn’t for them, no matter how badly they wanted it to be.


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

what kind of sniper rifles would be used by americans? my characters are in a “”gang”” of sorts and one of their trademarks is having a member outside with one for headshots if a deal goes down. i haven’t been able to find information on what they would have access to, or even rare types of rifles that would surprise the police that they owned but still be in the realm of possibility

If it’s a “trademark,” that’s going to cause problems. People dealing with
them will learn they need to find and eliminate the sniper, and then they’re
free to screw over the other rep.

On the surface, this kind of contingency planning is a good thing. But, it’s
also important not to simply use the same tactic repeatedly. Eventually someone’s
going to want to rip off your characters, and at that point, if your character’s
backup is predictable, that becomes a known quantity they can neutralize and
get on with their day.

Someone who rigs the merchandise with explosives on a deadman’s switch one
day, has a sniper on overwatch the next, and rounds out the week with a hand off
in a public place is going to be a lot harder to screw over than someone who
sticks with a single method every time.

Incidentally, another fantastic way to screw your sniper plan over would be
to insist on the hand off occurring in a crowded public space like a train
station or inside the security cordon at an airport. Your sniper can’t just
start shooting into the crowd if things go wrong, and depending on the
population density, one guy with a 9mm there, specifically, to screw over your
characters will be able to walk away in the ensuing chaos.

Headshots are also a problem, though not exactly for the same reason. The
thing about shooting someone in the head, even through a scope, is it’s a lot
harder than putting a round in their chest. Professional shooters aim for the
torso, calling it “center mass.” The logic is fairly simple. You’re odds of
putting a bullet somewhere in their chest are much better than trying to put a
round through their head. Combine this with the fact that headshots are not always
lethal, and taking someone’s head off becomes a lot less appealing.

This doesn’t mean you can’t have a character that focuses on headshots
because they think that’s what being professional means, or because they’re a
showoff. But, they’re more likely to completely miss their target, especially
if they’re moving.

Like headshots, center mass hits aren’t completely lethal, but you’re far
more likely to hit something necessary on an imperfect shot, than a near miss
that was trained on their head.

In an urban environment, you don’t actually need a sniper rifle. At the
ranges your characters will be dealing with, your character could make due with
a scoped .223 varmint rifle. Really, the difference between a hunting rifle and
a precision sniper rifle is just quality control. If you’re trying to put a
round in someone a block away, slapping a scope on a civilian variant H&K
G3 or M14 would serve your character adequately. Failing that, they could get
the job done with nearly any off-the-shelf .30-06 hunting rifle. Which is
basically what you’re buying with most sniper rifles. An overpriced, QA
certified, hunting rifle.

If your character is engaging in criminal activity, that “overpriced” part
is just money down the drain. They don’t get anything for it, and the weapon
needs to be tossed after it’s used. That is; if they’re smart.

When the police investigate a crime scene they’re going to be looking bullets
and shell casings. The bullet will allow you to match to the barrel, while the
casings will allow you to identify the model of firearm used.

At this point, if you’re reusing a gun between multiple crime scenes, there
will be, easy to follow, forensic evidence that will tie your character’s
actions together.

This is more of an issue if they’re acting as an assassin, but if your
character is an intelligent, professional, criminal, they need to toss and
replace their guns after using them on a job. There are plenty of idiots who
will keep using the same guns, or don’t have the resources (and connections) to
replace their weapon on a whim. But, depending on how your characters are
presented, this is a serious consideration.

Either their gun is an element of their character, and a serious liability
moving forward, or it’s a tool they need for their job, and something they
replace as needed.

Similarly, if your character is focusing on exotic or unusual firearms, that’s
something that will make them much easier to identify and track, than someone
using cheap, off-the-shelf weapons they bought on the black market.

The goal for most professional criminals is to be as unremarkable as
possible. It makes tracking them down after the fact much harder. Conversely,
someone waving around a WA 2000 is going to be singularly memorable. It’s an
incredibly rare and expensive gun that, yes, you can buy, but there are only
176 of the guns in existence (and only about 15 in the United States). That
means, if your character is using one, they’re part of a very small group of
people, and much more easily identified than someone using a $500 Remington Model
700 they bought with a stolen ID at Wal-Mart last week.

This doesn’t mean your character can’t spend $40,000 on a WA 2000. It also
doesn’t mean they absolutely have to throw it in the trash if they use it on a
job. But, in both cases, it’s a very bad idea, for the reasons mentioned above.
As with headshots, this is a legitimate choice, it’s just a very poor one on the
part of a character, which illustrates that they’re an amateur pretending to be
a professional.

What your character needs is an accurate high power rifle. It can be
semi-auto, or bolt action. It needs to accept a scope, almost all will. But
that leaves a lot of options, ranging from civilian variant battle rifles to
common hunting rifles. The former are going to be slightly more “exotic” and
come with the benefit of being semi-automatic, with large magazines, but this
is something you’re going to need to nail down for yourself.


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

Hello! If I have a character who is a near Olympic level gymnast, how could this influence her fighting style? I’m willing to stretch a bit of the disbelief as far as using her skills in combat, but I don’t want to be completely unrealistic.

Realistically, it means she can’t afford to fight, or she doesn’t know how.

Olympic level training is beyond a full time job. It’s something that requires a serious, constant, commitment. It is not something you receive, stop doing, and come back to later. The line between Olympic and “not quite” is on your character’s determination to be the best, not how much training they’re doing. You need a lot of training just to approach Olympic level in anything.

Olympic level training also isn’t something you can take a break from and come back to later. Extreme conditioning like this only lasts as long as you keep maintaining it, and will quickly degenerate when you stop. Additionally, your character is in constant competition with other athletes. Combine these factors and any time they take off will put them at a distinct disadvantage against their competitors. This includes time they need to heal any injuries sustained in fights.

Ironically, in this respect, it’s not that different from practical hand to hand training. It needs to be maintained because you’re in direct competition with the people trying to kill you. Though, the time commitment for hand to hand training is much lower. (With, the important exception: characters going for advanced belt rankings will need to commit considerable time to their training. The higher the ranking, the more time required.) Practical hand to hand training is usually refreshed every few months, rather than being a constant commitment.

There aren’t enough hours in the day for your gymnast to reach near Olympic levels and train to combat proficiency in a martial art. As in life, your characters need to specialize. People can’t do everything. There are limits. “If I want to do this, I’ll need to give up that.” This is called opportunity cost.

Opportunity cost is the idea that for each decision you make, you give up alternate options. The opportunity cost for even attempting to be the best in the world at anything is severe. You need to sacrifice a lot in pursuit of that dream. It’s important to remember, this also applies to your characters. And, yes, being “near Olympic level” is an attempt to be the best in the world. A failed attempt, but an attempt all the same.

For a character who is pursuing an Olympic dream, the strain of combat is career ending. We’ve talked about the physical costs associated with violence before, but it’s worth saying this again: combat will wreck your body. Even if you come out on top, even if you win, violence will tear your body apart.

For a normal person, assuming there aren’t any serious injuries, the strain of a single fight isn’t a serious problem. Everything aches for a couple days (sometimes up to a week), it’s unpleasant but life goes on. (In most cases, we’re more concerned with the cumulative effect of violence over time.) However, for someone who is already pushing their body to its limits, those aches mean they should take time off and allow their body to recover. But, they’re not likely to do that because stopping will put them behind the curve. This means that rather than giving their body time to heal, they’re going to aggravate their injuries, which will also impair their ability to compete.

So, the very short answer is, it will affect your character because she didn’t have time to learn how to fight. If she’s still training to be in the Olympics it will probably knock her out of contention. Both because she’s getting into fights, and because it will prevent her training. Though, if that’s because of an attempt to power through the pain going catastrophically wrong or because of her trainers pulling the plug and making sure she has the opportunity to heal is up to you.


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

I’m writing a story about people who fight demons, which are generally bestial, and range in size. I’m trying to give all my characters different weapons to make it a bit more interesting, and I was wondering how effective a kusarigama might be for fighting against demons? And if not, are there any weapons that are somewhat similar that might be better to use?

So, we’ve said this before: you use the right tool for the right job. Weapons are just tools. You have a situation where you need to remove an ambulatory object from your environment. What that object is, and where it is, will determine the necessary tool.

When you’re dealing with aggressive monsters, a kusarigama, is almost certainly, the wrong tool. For those of you who don’t know what a kusarigama is; it’s a kama (an Asian hand scythe) with a weighted chain attached to the grip. It’s held like a normal kama in one hand, while the other hand grips the chain, adjusting the length, and controlling the pattern of the chain strikes. The blade on the grip is then used when the opponent closes, or their defense is compromised, to the point that the kusarigama’s wielder can close the distance. And, no, you don’t grip the chain and swing the blade around.

Unfortunately, when dealing with monsters, the issue isn’t getting close enough to use something like this, it’s surviving if you end up there. If you’re dealing with something that is inhumanly strong, and inhumanly fast, getting that close is suicide. It’s a large part of why, historically, spears and bows were used for hunting, along with much more specialized tools.

The problem with one weapon warriors is: what happens when the weapon breaks, is lost, or otherwise disabled? If your character has a sword as their only weapon, getting backhanded by a demon, thrown 10 feet, and seeing their sword flying off into the valley below is a death sentence.

Now, what you’d actually see, historically, were soldiers who would carry backup weapons. They’d frequently start with a polearm, and carry a sword as a sidearm, and possibly other weapons as backups, or for specific situations, or emergencies.

If your characters are hunting a 10 foot tall demon with polearms, and other more specialized tools designed specifically to exploit it’s weaknesses. If that’s a magical sword, that is the only thing that can actually slay them, then that is going to have to be there.

As a general rule, don’t rely on weapons to distinguish your characters. It’s fine as a stepping stone while learning, but I would strongly encourage you to look at your characters as people, with distinct personal histories, shaped by their formative experiences, and colored by their resulting philosophies. Rather than just, “I have a big guy, so he needs a big weapon.”

Think about what your characters experienced, and how that shaped them into who they are when your story begins. You don’t need to go back and dredge all of that up for the reader, unless you feel it’s appropriate. But, let your character’s experiences shape them into the people they’ve become, rather than using their weapons as a flashcard.

There is one major exception to this. If you’re working in a visual
medium, particularly anime and manga, though the same can apply with
comics and cartoons as a whole, then the individual weapons can help the
reader quickly distinguish your characters at a glance. It also varies
up your combat sequences in a way that can keep the material feeling
fresher, longer. If that’s what you’re aiming for, it’s a genre
convention for good reason. But, this is a design element that does not
translate to prose.

This may seem like a non-sequitor recommendation, but, I would strongly recommend taking a look at The Witcher novels by Andrzej Sapkowski. The Last Wish is probably the best self contained introduction to the setting and characters, though Sword of Destiny is a much meatier look at the idea of professional monster hunters in a fantasy setting. Both are absolutely worth being included in your frame of reference for writing fantasy monster hunters.


This blog is supported through Patreon. If you enjoy our content, please consider becoming a Patron.

How can a blind person fight an able bodied person in a farmhouse, and still manage to get away?

They can’t.

Blind martial artists do exist. They’re something of a rarity, but blindness
doesn’t mean you can’t learn martial arts. They can’t learn it the same way a
sighted martial artist would; it requires an entirely different teaching
method. Blindness also doesn’t mean they can’t win a fight. But, being able to
see is a critical advantage.

It’s the difference between knowing there’s a knife on the kitchen table,
and not. It’s the difference between knowing your opponent is going for that
knife, or not. It’s the ability to transition stance and techniques to deal
with a suddenly armed opponent.

If you’re sitting there thinking, “but, they’ll hear it.” Yes. But the sound
itself is far less informative than the ability to see what your opponent is
doing. Was that a knife? A loaded 1911? The TV remote? If you can see it, then
you know. But, if you can’t…

In fact, of the two major sensory disabilities, a deaf fighter will be far
better suited to deal with actual combat than a blind one. You can operate
without being able to hear your opponent. You’re still at a serious
disadvantage, but it is far less debilitating.

That’s the first problem, the second is escape. How does your character know
it’s a farm house? More importantly, even once they find a way outside, how do
they know what direction to run in?

If they know where they are, then that’s partially averted. If it’s their
home, they can get around, and know where to go for safety. But, if it’s
unfamiliar territory, then running won’t make things better.

Even in the best circumstances, without a disability, getting away from an
attacker takes quick thinking, situational awareness, and some running. For
someone who’s blind, that’s not impossible, but it is much more difficult. They
need to know where they are, where they can find safety, and how to get between
those two points without being harmed or killed in the process. Without using
visual cues to establish or help with any of that.

We get variations on questions fairly frequently. But, disabilities mean
there are things characters cannot do. Things a normal person could do easily
become difficult. Things a normal person could do with difficulty become
impossible. It doesn’t mean they can’t participate. Or that they don’t have
value. But it does mean, for someone living with a disability, they can’t
simply overcome it on a whim.

I say this, and I still love Daredevil. I’ll still argue he’s one of the
most compelling characters Stan Lee ever created. You can have a character who
finds strength in adversity. But, it never comes from disregarding his

We get a lot of questions that run in a similar thread to this one. “My
character lost an arm…” “Is deaf in one ear…” “Has PTSD…” “Is blind
in one eye…” “Has no lower intestine…” And it follows to the inevitable, “how
can they ignore that and do what I want?” They can’t. You shouldn’t. Ignoring
it is incredibly disrespectful to people that actually live with those
disabilities, and, to borrow a term from roleplaying games, being a munchkin.
These are very different issues from the original question, but, let’s hit each
one in turn.

The first is an extension of The Law of Conservation of Characters. This is
a term that was coined (I think) by Roger Ebert. Basically, if you’re taking
the time to put a character in your story, they need to be there for a reason.
He would use it as a test to identify the traitor/killer/surprise lagoon
monster, ahead of schedule by looking at the cast and identifying any character
that did not serve a purpose.

The extension is to turn it around and be aware of this in your own writing.
If you’re putting a character in your story, there needs to be a reason.
Further, if they have a trait (any trait) it also needs to be there for a
reason. If you’re adding a character with a disability because, “you want to,”
then you’re going to (at best) be pandering or (at worst) pretending to be inclusive to
make yourself feel better.

And, yes, actually talking about a disability is a legitimate reason to put
it in your story. If you’re writing about the experiences of someone who has
lost their sight, then that is a trait that needs to be there. If that’s the
case, then you really need to do some in depth research on the subject
before starting.

If you’re adding traits to a character because they add texture to the world
or provide red herrings, that can certainly be legitimate. For example: if
you’re writing a murder mystery, and one of the suspects was a soldier who
fought against the victim’s side during “the war,” then that’s both. Also, in a
good classic murder mystery or spy thriller, a few extra red herring characters
aren’t necessarily a misstep.

But, at the same time, you do need to consider what those traits are, and if
they’re appropriate for the story you’re trying to tell. If you’re writing
about a character escaping from kidnappers, then blindness or being a
paraplegic will throw a monkey wrench into the entire endeavor.

If you’re writing a murder mystery, and the character with the clear motive
couldn’t be the killer, because they’re blind, and the victim was sniped… then
that’s a piece of the puzzle.

I’m singling out mysteries here, because that’s one of few the genres that
embraces red herrings as plot devices.

If you’re simply adding disabilities to a character because you want to be,
“inclusive…” Please, for fuck sake; stop. It’s not inclusive, it is, at best,
pandering, and frequently, insulting.

So, let’s talk about munchkins, and what they mean to you as a writer.

If you’re somehow not familiar with the term, a munchkin is an RPG player
who aggressively builds their characters to be as powerful as possible,
subverting the rules and common sense as needed. As far as I know, the term
dates back to UseNet posts in the early 90s, though the word itself is borrowed
from The Wizard of Oz books.

The closest literary relative would be a Mary Sue, but that’s not really an
applicable analogy because of the methods a Munchkin uses to optimize their
character. Munchkinism is heavily dependent on a game’s specific rules, but, in
extremely broad strokes, a Munchkin will take penalties in something they don’t
care about in order to boost the capabilities they’re using to exploit the

What does this mean? It goes back to what I was saying a minute ago. If you’re
giving your character a trait, it needs to be there for a reason. The basic
trade off mechanic that munchkins feed on is one that makes a lot of sense in
building a character. If you have a character who is socially inept, but very
intelligent, that makes sense as a basic design tradeoff. It is a quick
reliable way to remind yourself that your characters are different people. One
does this, another does that.

Frequently, in Munchkinism, you’re looking for ways to take penalties that
won’t actually matter, because you can just work around them, or trade the
penalties elsewhere. If you’re building a character as a combat piece, and nothing
else, that’s not really a problem. But, in roleplaying, as with writing, the
first goal is to tell a story, not to demonstrate your prowess as a rules

You’ll see elements of this in some Mary Sues. The character, as written,
has some horrible flaw that just… gets… ignored, by everyone. We’re told
they’re socially awkward, but see no evidence of it in the actual text. We’re
told they can’t drive, but we’re never shown any of day to day hindrance that causes.
We’re told they’re pathologically afraid of violence… because they’re
fantastic at it? That’s not how that works.

And, that’s the problem with a lot of these questions. They boil down to, “I
slapped a penalty on my character, now how do I cheat my way around it?” You
don’t. You shouldn’t. Embrace it.

When you’re writing, you create the world and set the rules. You might be
borrowing those rules from some approximation of reality, but you set them. What
makes characters interesting isn’t the things they can do, it’s the things that
limit them. The things you put in front of your character that they can’t
overcome without significant effort, or that they’re unwilling to yield
against, even when it breaks them. In creating your world, you need to set
those limits and work within them, rather than looking for ways to subvert them.

Characters who work against their limits are far more interesting and
memorable than ones who slip the bounds and stomp off. Sometimes that means you’ve
written a character who can’t fight. You can go two ways with that; they refuse
to admit they’re not up for it, and keep getting beaten down, or they try to
work their way around without resorting to violence.

How does a blind character get out of a rural farmhouse where they’re being
held? By being smarter or more manipulative than their captors. By working out
the weak links in the social fabric of their captors. By finding a way to
contact someone in the outside world. By thinking, really, thinking about their
situation, and making sure they have a plan for what they’ll do next. (Get a
knife, stab the guy… what’s next?) That you’re asking, suggests you have no
more of an idea than I do, and you have more information on the setting.

Does blindness give them access to any more information that a sighted
character wouldn’t have? Maybe. But, if asked about a character with no prior
history of violence, my final advice would be the same. You set up a situation
where violence should be the last resort, and has the greatest risk of getting
your character killed. Unless they want to die, their own ability in risk
assessment should have pointed them somewhere else.