Recently, I started a new watching a new series called JoJo's Bizarre Adventure and at first they had a gentlemanly, courageous character as the lead but then they switched to his grandson who had a vastly different character.

Let me just state beforehand that I'm not saying all main characters have to be completely good and have no character flaws, a flawed character is much more realistic and relatable to the reader. However, there must be some flaws that a main character, especially the kind that goes on an adventure to save the world shouldn't possess. Now in this particular series the grandson JoJo while buff and in possession of powers, relies on his intellect a great deal to win his battles and seeing him fool and outsmart his opponent is one of the strengths of the show.

On the other hand, there are times when his tricks seem to seem more like cheating and unbefitting of a hero character. For example, during a chariot competition he sabotoges his opponent by putting rocks under his wheels. This is just the kind of underhanded trick the villian would normally use that puts the main character in a better light and allows the hero to look good by winning anyway without resorting to such methods. At the same time, in my example, JoJo is facing an immortal warrior and he justifies himself by stating that all is fair in survival. Which in his case is true since he won't survive unless he wins the match.Aside from this particular example, there are many stories with degrees of flawed main characters that make you rethink whether you should really root for them or not. In Percival Everett's Assumption, the main character turns into the villian at the end.

At the other end of the spectrum, every guide meant to help amateur authors write books seem to specify the same type of character. One that is flawed and relatable. But every person is different so making a character that's relatable only goes so far. You can't make a character that is relatable to every person. And having one unique but likeable character once in a while can be a nice change instead of an endless of similar looking characters that you won't really remember or don't really like that much except the story was nice so now you like the character too.

So should there be a line? A degree of how flawed a main character should actually be. Readers instinctively root for the main character to overcome whatever their facing in the story because they're trying to do what's right, or even just trying to get through it but is still courageous. But what do you do when the main character doesn't care about what's right, or is the one doing all the wrong, or do main character's even need to be good in the first place? Would a story still be worth reading if the character didn't do anything good but ended messing everything up instead? What defines a main character? Should anything define a main character?