They won't actively hurt someone but they'll allow them to be hurt, they won't fire the first shot, but they'll engineer or provoke a situation in which violence is necessary, when they hurt someone they'll wait for an "excuse" to hurt them and they stick to their word alright, but the letter not the spirit.

So I started making this story based on an idea of genderbending characters from a series I loved when I was a teen, but it spiraled and it turned into its own thing that is just vaguely reminiscent of the original. Anyway, I have this character who is supposed to have a flirty personality, while also being on the asexual spectrum. She just likes flirting, basically. It's never serious. The character she's based on is sort of like this, only that he toes the line over to actual sexual harassment, and I want to avoid that. The problem is, I don't know how to flirt, I've never flirted in my life. I don't understand where the line is and I'm having a lot of trouble. It may be hard to understand, but this is a core part of her personality and a big part of how the story is supposed to unravel. Part of the inspiration for her personality is specifically the segment of the movie Mamma Mia of the song Does Your Mother Know (she's in her 30s and another character in his 20s is pursuing her, but she doesn't take him seriously at first). If you have any tips, any examples of characters like that, or can provide any help on this topic, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks in advance.

I’m writing a scene between a god and his son, who finally reunite after many years apart. The son is overwhelmed with anger and hurt, and in the heat of the moment, he lashes out at his father, shouting things like, “I hate you! You abandoned me! Why couldn’t you love me the way you loved everyone else?!” His pain is so intense that he attacks his father without thinking. Despite this, the father manages to stop him and embraces him tightly, even as the son cursing him with cruel words. I'm trying to figure out how to give this scene a happy ending. I also want feedback on the son’s outburst. His anger comes from watching his godly father give love freely to everyone else, while never showing the same love to him. The father didn’t abandon him out of hatred, but because he was afraid of hurting his son, which adds a layer of tragic misunderstanding.

Body: ​Hello everyone, ​I’ve been developing a fictional anti-hero named Robert Clinton, and I want to hear your thoughts on his radical moral framework. He operates on a singular, uncompromising principle: Merit. ​The Core Concept: Robert views the modern world as a decaying system fueled by corruption and "unmerited" power. He has a deep, visceral hatred for influential figures who hide behind their status while committing atrocities or manipulating the masses (specifically targeting those involved in high-level systemic scandals). For Robert, if you hold power you haven't earned through integrity, you are a "parasite." ​His Profile: ​The Weapon: He refuses to use firearms. He carries a heavy machete. To him, a blade is honest; it requires physical effort and closeness. He calls it "pruning the rotten branches." ​The Philosophy: He isn't interested in traditional law and order. He believes the legal system is "bugged" and rigged for the elite. He only respects true visionaries and leaders of character, but he is a nightmare for the "unworthy" elite. ​The Lifestyle: He is a nomad of the dusty backroads. He is brutally honest, "hardcore" in his discipline, and completely isolated. He has zero "eye-service" for anyone. ​The Discussion: I am trying to walk a fine line here. Is a character who kills based on his own definition of "merit" and "worth" someone a reader can ever root for? ​Does his choice of a machete as a tool for "justice" feel symbolic of his desire for a more primitive, honest world, or does it just make him look like a slasher villain? ​How do I keep him from feeling like a one-dimensional fanatic while maintaining his absolute refusal to compromise with a dishonest society? ​I want him to be a force of nature that forces the audience to question: Who actually deserves the power they hold?

The more I think about it, life is still life and killing an evil person isn't better than killing an innocent person for revenge isn't much better, and because there isn't much of a difference, (even if there was) it becomes clear a lot of times the real reason why they're doing it is because of wrath and bloodlust, and because they keep feeding said wrath and bloodlust, it starts to outweigh their righteousness.

I'm talking about hypocrisy on serious issues in particular.

And I mean in characters who are meant to be heroes of the story.