I am going to use Flufflepuff as an example here. Just because she seems to be the most popular example that I could find. This is not an attack on her specifically or anything. Please keep in mind that I don’t dislike Flufflepuff at all, and I find her very entertaining. I just don’t think that she is a particularly “good” character going by the rules of character-making.Flufflepuff is this big ball of fluff that is indeed quite adorable. The videos and ask blog she has is entertaining, and quite funny at times. However, this does not necessarily make her a “good” character.
See, she doesn’t seem to have any flaws, except that she’s maybe socially awkward at times, and I have seen many people call her “brain-dead” and I can’t really say that I blame them. She has no flaws, and is generally liked by everyone, including Crystalis. But the Bronies eat her up, as they do with may other adorable OC’s that are cardboard.
However, an OC that is less adorable, has flaws, is disliked by some, and is just generally more well-rounded struggle to be popular and often get ridiculed because they’re “not cute.” To me, this is unfair.
By the rules of character making and development, the adorable Flufflepuff (along with countless others like her) should be a horrible character, yet she is beloved way more than SO MANY good OC’s that are, by the same rules, BETTER characters.
I know I might get some hate for this, but it’s my opinion, and I know that others can agree with me. Again, I am not attacking Flufflepuff, and I like her quite a bit, I just hate that the well-rounded OC’s out there can be shunned away by OC’s with bigger eyes…
TL;DR: Just because a character is aesthetically appealing does not make them well-rounded, and I hate how there are so many bad characters that are cuter than good ones that get more attention…
- Submitted by rosexknight
She’s an adorable ball of fluff for Christ sake.
“Fluffle Puff is bad because she’s not a well-developed character.”
She’s not supposed to be a well-developed character.
It’s okay to not be well developed, but she is just to mono-dimensional. All the posts are just the same thing.
*question asked*
*flufflepuff stands there*
*chrysalis says something*
*Flufflepuff blows a raspberry/ gets hurt/ both*
gravybath liked this blushing-bacchus liked this
champion-satoshi reblogged this from mlpartconfessions
hyperactive-anchovies liked this
goldheartjessy liked this
rdawesomethesecond liked this
cryptid-aliens liked this
lt-amazil liked this
fladdykin liked this candiedbloody liked this
the-geode-amalgamation liked this
justauser09 liked this toaster-tan reblogged this from adgerelli
jess-a-sketch liked this
chiyoeatsbauxite liked this
theawesomeone99 liked this
cloperella reblogged this from mlpartconfessions and added: Eh… I can agree with this.
jewlecho liked this
puffydearlysmith reblogged this from nemo-tv-champion
puffydearlysmith liked this
reallyactuallycereal liked this
ask--cloudy-blog liked this
ilovetomasticate liked this
proudmuggleart liked this immavampirekiwi reblogged this from mlpartconfessions
immavampirekiwi liked this
asksolarflair said: There are no hard ‘rules’ for character making. Nothing real. Because a rule can always be defied in the process of making a great character. Or setting. If you ask me a character being successful is enough to qualify them as at least 'acceptable’.
lonely-giratina liked this
tired-snake liked this inuiri liked this
shiningarmorrps liked this
2ndhandsquirrel liked this
cogsymod liked this
johnny-of-suburbia liked this
juliian-devorak liked this
zealothia liked this mlpartconfessions posted this
- Show more notes
