I think what you mean by weakness is a flaw. No one likes a perfect character. That character has to have some sort of flaw. You can always give it a try, but flawed characters are better than those that are flawless.
Unless that character is hillariously flawless.
Totally ok with that, and I'll add that even some of the traits that you will see as positive, not only may be a flaw in certain circumstances, but can even be a flaw at all time for some people. Eg. for me, things generally considered positive like being very confident, or being bubbly, are flaws and will almost always make me suspicious. Ok, I'm very weird, so it may be an extreme example, but you see what I mean. Depending on the readers, your 'too perfect' character may already have flaws.
nah, i just go ham creating my characters instead of fussing over how balanced they are. the more you get a feel for writing them the more their personality comes into shape. its so much more enjoyable than trying to create a balanced and structured list of positives and flaws.
my character elisha? 100% self indulgent oc at first. hes a wealthy, sweethearted vampire with a pretty face and a high position of power. huge mary sue. but the more i wrote him in sundown his character and weaknesses really naturally fleshed itself out. he overshares, has issues feeling like hes not in control of the current situation, blames himself for things out of his control etc. this isnt stuff i really set up or even thought about at all? it just kinda happened naturally.
I think the only flawless character that comes to mind for me atm who's very likable is Master Oogway from Kung Fu Panda, so arguably, no, it's not really a requirement, however you would have to make up for it by other means to make the story not boring, see it'd only be a 35 second movie if Master Oogway had to fight Tai Lung instead of Po, and I know that it'd be a 35 second movie because there is a scene in the actual movie where exactly that happens.
So, summa summarum... Write characters, not mannequins with "flaws" and "strengths". Writers deal with "real" people, even if they're just characters on the pages of your book. Same goes for the worlds that you create, whether fictional or not.
after reading the responses in the thread I think I've already found my answer.
I realized that a thing that actually does make the character what one might call imperfect is the fact that she has no choice but to go along with the rules set for her as her job in my story and goes after the protagonist to attempt to arrest her for "stealing" an object a regular person wouldn't be allowed to posess... but they end up being forced together in a situation and will have no choice but to work together to get out of it despite the fact that she knows it's "wrong" to do.
sorry for the long explanation, I was just trying to give some more background info since you asked
Yeah, that sounds find to me. Or, at least, you don't need to worry about this character not having weaknesses. Dealing with obligations of the job and right/wrong makes for good drama. 
At the very least every single significant character needs a flaw or multiple flaws. Not having any flaws would just make the character seem boring and blank (reason why we have the whole "Mary Sue" and "Gary Stu" tropes). However, I'd also add that having too many flaws can detract from a character, as it may seem like you are making them suffer for the sake of suffering.
A character having a "flaw" doesn't necessarily mean that it's a weakness. When people say that all characters need a flaw, they don't mean it like that. They just mean that no realistic character should be perfect because no one is really perfect in real life. Not being perfect can literally mean anything the writer doesn't consider as "perfection". Maybe that character isn't too attractive, or maybe they are stubborn or literally whatever you can think of. It's up to you to decide whether you want to portray a realistic character or not.
depends. If we're talking about a human, yep. Otherwise they will come across as annoying.
If it's a god-being probably not. They can afford to be perfect. Main characters should never be perfect imho.
This doesn't mean all characters have to be "crippled" etc. A character flaw can be for example, someone who judges people at face value. Maybe they're quick to lose their temper? Maybe they hold grudges? These can all be considered a flaw in character.
I've always been of the opinion that virtues and how they are applied--correctly and incorrectly--are what truly makes an interesting character, not flaws. People don't love Spider-Man because he's always down on his luck, they love him because even though he's down on his luck he puts others before himself.
This could be a really interesting struggle.
Maybe this character is too attached to the rules. This could be for different reasons.
for example, it could be because of a strong need for order or maybe for the need to feel adecuate in front of that society.
Choosing between following the rules and doing the right thing can be this character`s dilema.
I don't really think so. Not everyone has that defining or really visible flaw. It depends on a story, really, you can take LotR for example. Of 9 main characters, only 2 have real flaws: Boromir is easily manipulated, and Pippin is a bit dim. Two are a bit flawed, like Gimly and Legolas, who are a little bit racist at first. Other five are almost all positive traits: loyal, smart, honorable, able and selfless. Still, all are very good written characters.
Another good example are the MCU (non GotG) main cast, mostly only Tony has real flaws. Banner has his struggles, but both he and Hulk, are mostly positive traits. Cap is a bit bullheaded, but still a paragon.
So, no, your characters don't have to have a real flaw. Real people can't be good at everything, and we all have weaknesses, but even a weakness isn't necessarily a flaw. Like Aang's unwillingness to kill, gave him a bunch of trouble and was perceived as weakness by most (even his previous incarnations), but you can't really call it a character flaw.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I say yes, because like many characters, without one, they're kinda just there.
But I also say no, because you can go about crafting your characters (like a goofy slapstick one), and let the audience determine and understand their flaws. A kind of show, don't tell kind of ordeal. Those are the best kinds of characters to me.
Yes because when you make a character too perfect, they're boring and unrelatable. Even Superman has flaws. Without flaws, there's no balance, no challenges to face and no grounding elements. Besides, in the case of heroes, humility is a very big part of virtue.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
i feel like the understanding 'this character must Have A Flaw to be relateable' is how we get so many pretty perfect female characters who are clumsy in a way that contributes nothing to the story. so many writers seem to go 'oh, this character is too perfect. how do we make people like her?' 'make her trip over!' 'gasp....... youre a genius!'
all characters need to face a challenge, and all characters need to develop. and this necessitates 'flaws'; characteristics, methods, or values that hold them back from their goals, which they must change. if they dont face any challenges and dont change, whats the story?
say youve got a superhero called... uh... soup-man. hes got super strength, lazer vision, super speed, the works. nobody can fuck with him. no-bod-eeee. giving him the flaw 'has wind' or 'cant do math' is worthless if it doesnt contribute to a story where he changes. interesting character flaws would cause him to fail in his goals; maybe he gets cocky, which leads him to lose his powers, and then has to learn to overcome his pride and accept help from others. maybe he feels such an responsibility to save lives that he burns himself out, and needs to... uh... learn to overcome his pride and accept help from others. those are flaws that facilitate change.
that said, 'cant do math' could be a good flaw if he finds that while he is super strong and can fight anything, he keeps getting outsmarted by a particularly mathsy enemy.
And then he brings in his friend, The Nerdculator... and that's the moment when all of his pride flies out of the window.
Sarcasm aside(I'm a nerd, too), that was a good point you made about perfect female characters sometimes having the most irrelevant weaknesses. I perceive that this can also (sometimes) make them utterly irritating as a character(a writing factor that can be used to great effect, if you do it on purpose) and might even make your readers root for the antagonist(just to spite the perfect girl MC - if she is the main character, that is).
No one is a perfect being, loved by all. But flaws don't have to be in your face, or even faults of the character, they can merely be a matter of circumstance or an inconvenience, like an ageing warrior, or a woman who's 'too' tall to find a man... anything really that makes their existence more difficult than it otherwise would be.
Just dawned on me, that basically the "flaw" can only be perceived by characters withing the story, since the values outside of the story are prone to change. For example "racist" can was and in some places still is a norm, and won't be perceived as a flaw. From this perspective, a character can be "perfect to a flaw" if his perfection from the reader's point of view is an active hindrance to him/her within the story.
