Discussion What makes a compelling Imperial Character

[Saone Nola-bay]

Hello chaos community.

If you’ve been here long enough you might know an Imperial role player here or been apart of the various Imperial Factions on chaos.

Even better you might have seen them in action as an observer. So I want to know what makes a compelling Imperial character to you.

Something that makes you enjoy reading them.

 

[Michael Angellus]

For me, it is everything from the stare to their stance. For every Admiral Ozzel, there is a Paellon or Piet. They also have a very strong "Why? Because 'F' you, that's why!" Attitude.

My old Imperial (Pre-Chaos) never used interrogation droids but blindfolds, friends of theirs and a blaster.

 

[Lina Ovmar]

Consistency

 

[Arris Windrun]

I'd love to see imperial characters that actually have growth and character lives. Not just existing as vehicles to govern, fleet, or warpost.

An imperial that has developed personal relationships, drama, vices, etc. that spread out and develop across arcs is way more compelling than the slew of imperial characters that have been in 3 imperial factions but somehow only have ~50 posts.

 

[Michael Angellus]

I'd love to see imperial characters that actually have growth and character lives. Not just existing as vehicles to govern, fleet, or warpost.

An imperial that has developed personal relationships, drama, vices, etc. that spread out and develop across arcs is way more compelling than the slew of imperial characters that have been in 3 imperial factions but somehow only have ~50 posts.

I actually used to do this on old rp's but the format was more dice based so that opened up to it.

 

[Michael Angellus]

I miss dice based RP(no shade on Chaos at att) GMs controlled the story so you could make some amazing plans and surprises. Great strategic tests

 

[Ugoto Chivaro]

There is nothing about being an "Imperial character" that would exclude them from the usual rules of making a character compelling. They should have a worldview that is routinely tested and a personality that makes the results of those tests interesting.

I'd love to see imperial characters that actually have growth and character lives. Not just existing as vehicles to govern, fleet, or warpost.

An imperial that has developed personal relationships, drama, vices, etc. that spread out and develop across arcs is way more compelling than the slew of imperial characters that have been in 3 imperial factions but somehow only have ~50 posts.

Like, it's just this. This is all anyone has to do for any character.

 

[Perseus]

The question should more so be, "What makes a compelling character?"

It doesn't matter the background, or the starting point of the character. If they show believable characterization, motives, actions, and otherwise, then they are just that. A Compelling character. You could easily be playing an Imperial who is only there because its a job. Not because they want to make a career out of it. You could play a hardened man who has been in the force for years, or even a Criminal who found that the Discipline and Order structure helped him to not be one.

Its not the fact they are Imperial. Its the fact that they are well written, and fleshed out for whatever kind of story you want to tell.

 

[Matthew of Valendale]

Vortigern Mimkin
I like characters with beliefs and conviction, especially when I can see the reasoning behind those beliefs. Testing those convictions against different scenarios, pressures, and consequences, then seeing whether the character changes, deepens, hardens, or breaks, can work very well for a roleplaying character meant to be your "main."

In general, a compelling character is one who feels humanized in some way, shape, or form. If you intend to play villainy through the lens of an Imperial, then the question leans more toward what makes a villain compelling rather than simply what makes a character strong.

Ursula, Scar, and Frollo from disney movies work so well as villains because they are not evil in a hollow, decorative way. Each of them has a clear desire, a personal philosophy, and a method of control.

Ursula wants power, but she gains it through contracts, temptation, and exploiting what people already ache for.

Scar wants the throne, but his villainy grows out of envy, entitlement, and the belief that he was denied what should have been his.

Frollo is frightening because he believes himself righteous; he wraps cruelty in law, faith, and moral superiority until he can no longer see the monster in his own reflection.

That is what makes them memorable. They do not simply do bad things to do bad things; they justify those actions to themselves. Their beliefs shape their behavior, their behavior harms others, and the story forces those beliefs into conflict with the people they try to control.

For an Imperial character, that same idea can be very useful. What do they believe order protects people from? What cruelty do they excuse as necessary? What line do they think they would never cross… and what happens when the story brings them to it?

 

[Natasi Fortan]

There is nothing about being an "Imperial character" that would exclude them from the usual rules of making a character compelling. They should have a worldview that is routinely tested and a personality that makes the results of those tests interesting.



Like, it's just this. This is all anyone has to do for any character.

 

[Matthew of Valendale]

Vortigern Mimkin

To narrow this more specifically toward Imperials, I think what makes them compelling is the tension between the person and the machine they serve.

An Imperial character works best, to me, when their relationship with authority, hierarchy, Duty, and Order is personal. They shouldn't simply wear the uniform as an aesthetic; the uniform should mean something to them. Maybe it gave them structure when their life had none. Maybe it lifted them out of poverty? Maybe it taught them discipline, purpose, and belonging? Maybe it gave them permission to become cruel while calling that cruelty necessary?

That is where the interesting part comes in to play.

A compelling Imperial should have lines they believe they will never cross, and reasons they believe those lines matter. Then the story should place pressure on those beliefs. What happens when obeying orders costs them someone they care about? What happens when mercy would save lives but weaken their position? What happens when the system they defend rewards the worst version of them?

I also enjoy Imperials who have lives outside command rooms and battlefields. Friends, family, rivalries, vices, old loyalties, private regrets, little habits that make them feel like a person instead of a rank with dialogue. The more human they feel, the more interesting their choices become.

For me, the most memorable Imperial characters are not compelling because they are powerful. They are compelling because they believe in something, serve something larger than themselves, and eventually have to face what that service has made of them.

 

[Ronhar Tane]

Honestly I was going to post here but Matthew of Valendale has made all the points I would have far better than I could ever express. Really well written, sir!

 

[Aether Verd]

There is nothing about being an "Imperial character" that would exclude them from the usual rules of making a character compelling. They should have a worldview that is routinely tested and a personality that makes the results of those tests interesting.



Like, it's just this. This is all anyone has to do for any character.

 

[Saone Nola-bay]

Aether Verd Matthew of Valendale Ronhar Tane Natasi Fortan Perseus Ugoto Chivaro Arris Windrun Michael Angellus Lina Ovmar

Thanks very much for responding to this discussion. There are some great insight on how characters can be compelling without actually having to be Imperial at all.

 

[Alan]

Another thing, Imperials does not automatically mean bad. You don't need to be a bad guy to be an Imperial. Imperials are disciplined, noble, and dutiful. They sacrifice and they maintain, they care about one another, etc. And infact, not every Imperial Empire in Star Wars needs to be evil. It just needs to be absolute in it's authority, which doesn't make it automatically evil.

 

[Natasi Fortan]

Another thing, Imperials does not automatically mean bad. You don't need to be a bad guy to be an Imperial. Imperials are disciplined, noble, and dutiful. They sacrifice and they maintain, they care about one another, etc. And infact, not every Imperial Empire in Star Wars needs to be evil. It just needs to be absolute in it's authority, which doesn't make it automatically evil.

It hurts my teeth to agree with Alan, but yes, he is right. I think Imperials who twirl mustaches and are evil because it's fun or because it's liberating or because they're mad are actually among the least interesting characters, in canon or otherwise. To me, the best kind of Imperial is the kind who recognizes that choices have to be made that are harsh. The burden of being an Imperial leader -- a good Imperial leader -- is that it falls upon you to make decisions that cost you deeply, morally, to your very core. But you must make them for the good of the people for whom you are responsible, so that the next person doesn't have to dirty their hands to make that decision.

That was my approach to Natasi. I'm not saying she was a great Imperial leader (although she was, fight me) but the point of her was that she was raised in a tradition that demanded a certain softness from women, and she had to balance that against her obligations to the burgeoning First Order. She was a natural conciliator, but once confronted over Kaeshana, war was a moral imperative. It was a perverse moral imperative, but it was an imperative nonetheless.

 

[Darth Prazutis]

Every characters story has a beginning. That’s what makes a character compelling. Their early life/upbringing, what circumstances make them into the person they become, be it a monster or a saint.