Poll of the Day > Plot Armor through popularity vs giving a popular character a meaningful death?

(+) Yeah! (+)

If a character becomes popular enough in an ongoing story that isn't complete upon its release, they are often preserved, because they are popular (as it becomes fiscally foolish to kill them off even if you originally intended to), sometimes even being brought back from (supposed) death, however, this also sets the precedent that if a character is popular, they are safe from death, which can detract from how surprising a story can truly be if you know certain people without a doubt can't die, even excluding the protagonists and even other main characters.
---

Plot Armor is the silliest thing ever
---

Basically make it meaningful. However, sometimes it depends on the setting. A meaningful death can drive the plot forward or help the characters grow. However, if it's poorly timed, a publicity stunt, is reversed, or is in a show that kills off characters willy-nilly, it's really hard to do.

I'd like said character to be given a meaningful death. If said character is of any importance it would only make sense he/she is smart and experienced enough to avoid meaningless death.

Granted I'd admit surviving a barrage of arrows in an open field without some sort of shield where anyone can get hit is one I find a bit questionable.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Granted I'd admit surviving a barrage of arrows in an open field without some sort of shield where anyone can get hit is one I find a bit questionable.

You wouldn't be talking about some sort of specific example, would you?
---

tbh, most character deaths are going to be meaningless since there's little to no point in just killing characters off, except maybe when covering both sides of a war. And the fact that characters generally don't die doesn't make what they do less meaningful nor does having characters die really heighten the suspense since at least *some* characters need to stay alive and readers/viewers can usually figure out which ones they are.

And even most "meaningful deaths" are generally rendered meaningless by the writing afterward. Case-in-point is ALWAYS comics. Ultimate Spidey died solely so he could be replaced by a minority character, thus undoing any impact of his death because the brand continues under a new character. When a team characters dies, they're quickly replaced and soon forgotten. Nor does it benefit either the company or fans to kill off truly headline characters because both groups want to see the franchise continued.

InfestedAdam posted...

Granted I'd admit surviving a barrage of arrows in an open field without some sort of shield where anyone can get hit is one I find a bit questionable.

If they're wearing full-plate, they wouldn't need a shield. That'd more be an issue if they were wearing mail or the hilariously historically inaccurate leather armor everybody seems to favor in fiction nowadays whereas, in terms of actual defense, leather was most often just used for cosmetic value over some other form of armor like a gambeson.

Of course, the really annoying thing is the near-absence of helmets in historical fiction & fantasy, although there's a practical reason outside of the universe itself since it allows viewers to see the actor's face. The lack of shields where clearly one is needed -- which annoyed me when I caught some clips from Vikings -- is certainly another nuisance. Characters in mail, gambesons, leather, etc, shouldn't be going into battle without a shield (well, melee anyway).
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

You wouldn't be talking about some sort of specific example, would you?

Most recent one I can think of is from Game of Thrones but I think there have been other cases where the arrows somehow misses these important characters.

Zeus posted...

Of course, the really annoying thing is the near-absence of helmets in historical fiction & fantasy.

Ah yes, this is a beef of mine as well. It is more funny when said character charges into battle with the helmet and then decides to remove it in the middle of combat.
---

I dont like it when characters I like die, so Id prefer them to be basically immune to death.

What_The_Chris posted...

Plot Armor is the silliest thing ever

---

Silly meaningless deaths for realism. I wanna see jon snow just walking along the wall shootin' the shit with his mates and then just slip and fall off by mistake

Y'all do know plot armor exists for a reason, right?
It would suck to watch Game of Thrones and watch half of the main characters die from a random plague they got from pigs or whatever.

It's what exists to make the stories not feel like a bunch of random events strung together, that there is a narrative arc that exists and a through line.

shadowsword87 posted...

Y'all do know plot armor exists for a reason, right?
It would suck to watch Game of Thrones and watch half of the main characters die from a random plague they got from pigs or whatever.

It's what exists to make the stories not feel like a bunch of random events strung together, that there is a narrative arc that exists and a through line.

Plus imagine the effects on comic books. The Joker should have died 50 times over. Who would they bring in to replace him? DC hasn't managed to build up even ONE good Batman villain since... maybe 1993 when they introduced Bane (and the year before that, the cartoon stumbled on the idea of Harley Quinn almost by accident). There are a lot of junk villains that they've tried to establish as new major Batman rogues but none of them are great -- Hush, Professor Pyg, Great White Shark, Talon, etc -- so it'd be a straight up loss, ESPECIALLY because they'd try to replace the Joker with a similar rogue where most of the time we'd just be comparing him to the Joker.
---